On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 16:39:40 UTC+1, John Ashby wrote:

> Any True LOTR fan didn't bother with the story but spent all their time
> reading the appendices.

++

As a starvinf student I could only afford the 3-in-1 edition but yearned for the appendices in my parents' version. As soon as I had a job I bought volume 3. Later I scoured the bookshops to find volumes 1 and 2 in the same printing and disposed of the 3-in-1, presumably to a charity bookshop.

I haven't seen my set lately but suspect my son has them.

On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 16:19:34 UTC+1, steve hague wrote:

> I thought the Lord of the Rings films were superbly done.

Agreed. But not so The Hobbit films. We went to the first and were not over impressed but my brother went to the second and reported it as utter rubbish so we did not go.

On 24/05/2022 06:08, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 18:21, BrritSki wrote:
>
>> I am trying to remember a film we saw recently that lived up to the
>> book. Master and Commander wasn't bad but was based on 3 books really.
>> Killick wasn't right but the others were believable.
>
> I wasn't keen.  It's partly because I'm somewhat allergic to Russell
> Crowe, whose vanity as an actor seemed to have insisted on the removal
> of all Jack's human flaws,

Far-from-languid wave. I can't bear Russell Crowe. They needed someone
much sunnier and more venal. I can't think of a suitable actor, though,
they are all rather vain in the end (comes with the territory, I suspect)

and partly because so much of the pleasure of
> the books is O'Brian's prose and the depth of background he paints,
> without ever banging you over the head with it.

True, o king

>
> I can see me reading the whole lot again (for the fourth time, I think)
> before long - if only to read the word "obnubilate" again in - I think -
> The Mauritius Command.
>
Delicious. As is all the music, especially the ravishing little bit
about London Bach and rescuing the partita in the first book. Must read
that again. I need a new long-term reading project.

--
Kate B

On 23/05/2022 18:21, BrritSki wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 16:49, Kate B wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 16:39, John Ashby wrote:
>>
>>>> Any True LOTR fan didn't bother with the story but spent all their
>>>> time reading the appendices.
>>>
>>> I was that nerdy 15-year-old in 1966 when the second edition came
>>> out. I read the appendices from end to end and back again. I found an
>>> anomaly! And with the impertinence of youth I wrote to Tolkien. And
>>> got a reply. Which, with the sentimentality of age, I have now had
>>> framed... and consequently have become unexpectedly glamorous in the
>>> eyes of the nieces and nephew.
>>
>> Wow - them's some serious knickers[1], Kate!
>
> Yes, more details about what anomaly you found and Tolkein's reply please !

It was a discrepancy in Aragorn's age. In one place it says 190 years,
but was later
corrected to 210. He kindly sent me a page of notes explaining the
re-calculations in
enormous and circumstantial detail, accompanied by a letter from his
secretary conveying
his thanks for my interest. NB If you write Tolkein again I shall never
speak to you no more.

--
Kate B

On 24/05/2022 11:26, Kate B wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 18:21, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 16:49, Kate B wrote:
>>>> On 23/05/2022 16:39, John Ashby wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Any True LOTR fan didn't bother with the story but spent all their
>>>>> time reading the appendices.
>>>>
>>>> I was that nerdy 15-year-old in 1966 when the second edition came
>>>> out. I read the appendices from end to end and back again. I found
>>>> an anomaly! And with the impertinence of youth I wrote to Tolkien.
>>>> And got a reply. Which, with the sentimentality of age, I have now
>>>> had framed... and consequently have become unexpectedly glamorous in
>>>> the eyes of the nieces and nephew.
>>>
>>> Wow - them's some serious knickers[1], Kate!
>>
>> Yes, more details about what anomaly you found and Tolkein's reply
>> please !
>
> It was a discrepancy in Aragorn's age. In one place it says 190 years,
> but was later
> corrected to 210. He kindly sent me a page of notes explaining the
> re-calculations in
> enormous and circumstantial detail, accompanied by a letter from his
> secretary conveying
> his thanks for my interest. NB If you write Tolkein again I shall never
> speak to you no more.
>
>
>

Now, boys and girls, this it what passes for a Flame War in umra,

john

On 24/05/2022 11:26, Kate B wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 18:21, BrritSki wrote:
>>
>> Yes, more details about what anomaly you found and Tolkein's reply
>> please !
>
> It was a discrepancy in Aragorn's age. In one place it says 190 years,
> but was later
> corrected to 210. He kindly sent me a page of notes explaining the
> re-calculations in
> enormous and circumstantial detail, accompanied by a letter from his
> secretary conveying
> his thanks for my interest.

I thangyew.

> NB If you write Tolkein again I shall never speak to you no more.
>
Eeek ! Soz, and I know better too :(

On 24/05/2022 06:08, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 18:21, BrritSki wrote:
>
>> I am trying to remember a film we saw recently that lived up to the
>> book. Master and Commander wasn't bad but was based on 3 books really.
>> Killick wasn't right but the others were believable.
>
> I wasn't keen.  It's partly because I'm somewhat allergic to Russell
> Crowe, whose vanity as an actor seemed to have insisted on the removal
> of all Jack's human flaws, and partly because so much of the pleasure of
> the books is O'Brian's prose and the depth of background he paints,
> without ever banging you over the head with it.

Yes that's true.
>
> I can see me reading the whole lot again (for the fourth time, I think)
> before long - if only to read the word "obnubilate" again in - I think -
> The Mauritius Command.
>
I look forward to c**tsplice again. But suspect I won't be re-reading
them all again since someone mislaid several of the later volumes :(

On 24/05/2022 11:18, Kate B wrote:

> Delicious. As is all the music, especially the ravishing little bit
> about London Bach and rescuing the partita in the first book. Must read
> that again. I need a new long-term reading project.

Oh yes! I actually copied some of that that out a while ago because I
liked it so much (it's from The Ionian Mission, btw):

The opening movements were full of technical difficulties and he doubted
he would ever be able to do them anything like justice, but it was the
great chaconne which followed that really disturbed him. On the face of
it the statements made in the beginning were clear enough: their
closely-argued variations, though complex, could certainly be followed
with full acceptation, and they were not particularly hard to play; yet
at one point, after a curiously insistent repetition of the second
theme, the rhythm changed and with it the whole logic of the discourse.
There was something dangerous about what followed, something not unlike
the edge of madness or at least of a nightmare; and although Jack
recognized that the whole sonata and particularly the chaconne was a
most impressive composition he felt that if he were to go on playing it
with all his heart it might lead him to very strange regions indeed.

****
'[London Bach] wrote some pieces for my uncle Fisher, and his young man
copied them out fair. But they were lost years and years ago, so last
time I was in town I went to see whether I could find the originals: the
young man has set up on his own, having inherited his master's
music-library. We searched through the papers - such a disorder you
would hardly credit, and I had always supposed publishers were as neat
as bees - we searched for hours, and no uncle's pieces did we find. But
the whole point is this: Bach had a father.'

'Heavens, Jack, what things you tell me. Yet upon recollection I seem to
have known other men in much the same case.'

The man was a genius.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 24/05/2022 17:07, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 11:18, Kate B wrote:
>
>> Delicious. As is all the music, especially the ravishing little bit
>> about London Bach and rescuing the partita in the first book. Must
>> read that again. I need a new long-term reading project.
>
> Oh yes!  I actually copied some of that that out a while ago because I
> liked it so much (it's from The Ionian Mission, btw):
>
>
> The opening movements were full of technical difficulties and he doubted
> he would ever be able to do them anything like justice, but it was the
> great chaconne which followed that really disturbed him. On the face of
> it the statements made in the beginning were clear enough: their
> closely-argued variations, though complex, could certainly be followed
> with full acceptation, and they were not particularly hard to play; yet
> at one point, after a curiously insistent repetition of the second
> theme, the rhythm changed and with it the whole logic of the discourse.
> There was something dangerous about what followed, something not unlike
> the edge of madness or at least of a nightmare; and although Jack
> recognized that the whole sonata and particularly the chaconne was a
> most impressive composition he felt that if he were to go on playing it
> with all his heart it might lead him to very strange regions indeed.
>
> ****
> '[London Bach] wrote some pieces for my uncle Fisher, and his young man
> copied them out fair. But they were lost years and years ago, so last
> time I was in town I went to see whether I could find the originals: the
> young man has set up on his own, having inherited his master's
> music-library. We searched through the papers - such a disorder you
> would hardly credit, and I had always supposed publishers were as neat
> as bees - we searched for hours, and no uncle's pieces did we find. But
> the whole point is this: Bach had a father.'
>
> 'Heavens, Jack, what things you tell me. Yet upon recollection I seem to
> have known other men in much the same case.'
>
> The man was a genius.
>

Thank you! Infinitely obliged!

Definitely time for a re-read. I may be some time....

--
Kate B

On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:

> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!

Your servant, madam.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>
>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>
> Your servant, madam.
>
Read them during the dog watches.

You know why they are so called I trust?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>
>> Your servant, madam.
>>
> Read them during the dog watches.
>
> You know why they are so called I trust
Ex-RN here, so, yes :-)

--
Steveski

On 24/05/2022 11:26, Kate B wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 18:21, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 23/05/2022 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2022 16:49, Kate B wrote:
>>>> On 23/05/2022 16:39, John Ashby wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Any True LOTR fan didn't bother with the story but spent all their
>>>>> time reading the appendices.
>>>>
>>>> I was that nerdy 15-year-old in 1966 when the second edition came
>>>> out. I read the appendices from end to end and back again. I found
>>>> an anomaly! And with the impertinence of youth I wrote to Tolkien.
>>>> And got a reply. Which, with the sentimentality of age, I have now
>>>> had framed... and consequently have become unexpectedly glamorous in
>>>> the eyes of the nieces and nephew.

[snip]

NB If you write Tolkein again I shall never
> speak to you no more.

Not no how.

--
Steveski

On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>
>> Your servant, madam.
>>
> Read them during the dog watches.
>
> You know why they are so called I trust?

Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout party
etc.)

But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from him
that it's a good bet. I am forever in his debt for "at loggerheads,"
for example.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

Steveski <steveski@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>
>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>
>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>
>> You know why they are so called I trust
> Ex-RN here, so, yes :-)
>

‘Pig’s Tail Hours’? [Twirly]

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 22-May-22 10:30, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 16/05/2022 17:37, Nick Odell wrote:
>
>> I liked the book very much but not the film.  I thought it was one of
>> those films which tells the story OK but misses much of the depth of the
>> book, and hence lacked much of what stayed with me about the book.
>>
>
> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not
> think it falls short.
> I would be interested to hear where people have found exceptions to this
> 'rule'.
>

I'm often disappointed if I read the book after I've watched a film that I
particularly liked. Harry Potter being a shining exception. (A 10-year-old
student of mine told me that if you watch the film first you miss out on so
much detail from the book that it won't make much sense. Now I'm listening
to the Stephen Fry narrations on Audible I can see exactly what she means)

Maybe it's because a very good film has distilled the best of the book and
discarded the less good bits. I was disappointed when I read Midnight
Cowboy and Logan's Run.

--
Linda ff

On 22/05/2022 20:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not
> think it falls short.
I remember being really annoyed watching - I think - Parrish, who was
a redhead in the book and portrayed in the film by Troy Donahue (swoon!)
with his natural (?) blond locks.

--
Jenny M Benson

On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:34:29 +0100, Jenny M Benson
<NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/05/2022 20:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not
>> think it falls short.
> I remember being really annoyed watching - I think - Parrish, who was
>a redhead in the book and portrayed in the film by Troy Donahue (swoon!)
>with his natural (?) blond locks.

I've read some Daziel and Pascoe books and D is much worse in the
books.

On 25-May-22 6:40, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>
>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>
>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>
>> You know why they are so called I trust?
>
> Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout party
> etc.)
>
> But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
> swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from him
> that it's a good bet.  I am forever in his debt for "at loggerheads,"
> for example.
>

I have nothing to say, except:

Weevils.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 25/05/2022 19:01, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 25-May-22 6:40, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>>
>>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>>
>>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>>
>>> You know why they are so called I trust?
>>
>> Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout
>> party etc.)
>>
>> But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
>> swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from
>> him that it's a good bet.  I am forever in his debt for "at
>> loggerheads," for example.
>>
>
> I have nothing to say, except:
>
> Weevils.

A glass of wine with you, sir!

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 25-May-22 6:40, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>>
>>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>>
>>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>>
>>> You know why they are so called I trust?
>>
>> Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout party
>> etc.)
>>
>> But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
>> swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from him
>> that it's a good bet.  I am forever in his debt for "at loggerheads,"
>> for example.
>>
>
> I have nothing to say, except:
>
> Weevils.
>

You never met the umrat known as Weevil!

Sincerely Chris

On 26-May-22 15:13, Chris wrote:
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> On 25-May-22 6:40, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>>>
>>>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>>>
>>>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>>>
>>>> You know why they are so called I trust?
>>>
>>> Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout party
>>> etc.)
>>>
>>> But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
>>> swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from him
>>> that it's a good bet.  I am forever in his debt for "at loggerheads,"
>>> for example.
>>>
>>
>> I have nothing to say, except:
>>
>> Weevils.
>>
>
> You never met the umrat known as Weevil!

True, but there must be two weevils, or the whole thing falls at the
very first hurdle.

--
Sam Plusnet

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 26-May-22 15:13, Chris wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 25-May-22 6:40, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know why they are so called I trust?
>>>>
>>>> Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout party
>>>> etc.)
>>>>
>>>> But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
>>>> swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from him
>>>> that it's a good bet.  I am forever in his debt for "at loggerheads,"
>>>> for example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have nothing to say, except:
>>>
>>> Weevils.
>>>
>>
>> You never met the umrat known as Weevil!
>
> True, but there must be two weevils, or the whole thing falls at the
> very first hurdle.
>
>

Splutter.

Mrs McT

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 26-May-22 15:13, Chris wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 25-May-22 6:40, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2022 20:06, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 24-May-22 18:54, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/05/2022 18:13, Kate B wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you! Infinitely obliged!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your servant, madam.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Read them during the dog watches.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know why they are so called I trust?
>>>>
>>>> Because they are cur-tailed! (General hilarity, collapse of stout party
>>>> etc.)
>>>>
>>>> But Siriusly, I think I learned the origin from O'Brian. I couldn't
>>>> swear to it, but I learned so much about the origins of phrases from him
>>>> that it's a good bet.  I am forever in his debt for "at loggerheads,"
>>>> for example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have nothing to say, except:
>>>
>>> Weevils.
>>>
>>
>> You never met the umrat known as Weevil!
>
> True, but there must be two weevils, or the whole thing falls at the
> very first hurdle.
>
>

We’ve-all thought that at various times.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 22/05/2022 22:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 22-May-22 10:30, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 16/05/2022 17:37, Nick Odell wrote:
>
>> I liked the book very much but not the film.  I thought it was one of those films which
>> tells the story OK but misses much of the depth of the book, and hence lacked much of
>> what stayed with me about the book.
>>
>
> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not think it falls short.
> I would be interested to hear where people have found exceptions to this 'rule'.
>
Graham Greene's "Travels with my Aunt" is the only book I've read where I preferred the
film version. The rot started for me with "Mary Poppins" when I was quite young, as the
Disney version was so far removed from the original that I refused to consider it having
anything to do with P L Travers and saw it as a strange sort of cartoon with Dick van Dyke
being particularly bad.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I know what I mean, I also know what I like
whether or not it's Art.

--
Yassas,
Anne, Exceptionally Traditionally-built and somewhat confuzzled Hellerat