alt.fan.tolkien

On 2021-02-25 04:31:14 +0000, customer@avservices.com said: > I'm using it successfully as far as I've gotten (just a few minutes) on > Big Sur. It worked fine on Catalina even though it's not supposed to. > > Only problem I've found so far is that click-selecting is not working. > IOW to expand and collapse threads. The arrow keys substitute, but an > item has to be active first, so if you're stepping down in a list you > need to down arrow, click, down arrow, click, etc. > > OOps. I can't drag and drop to select a group from the "all" list. I'm > working on that now. > > People who say you have to move on from Unison don't understand what > Unison does in terms of browsing. The more modern substitutes work fine > for getting at newsgroups that have been indexed, but you need Unison > (or another application on a Windows box) to actually browse all the > groups. There are a number of keyboard/mouse/trackpad issues introduced by Big Sur that affect a lot of applications more current than the Unison usenet browser so I suspect a fix will happen soon which will help Unison as an unintended byproduct. The "all" list problem in the Unison usenet browser is easy to work around as the drag and drop works fine in the tabular listing of all groups. Other problems are more annoying: for example you choose an item on a list and in some types of lists your choice is a line off, other lists 3 off; most lists fine. In many other cases drag and drop is not working so, for example, you can't sort your group listings (at least I haven't found a way yet). BTW why is this on a Tokien group? I'm pretty sure he never used the Unison newsgroup browser and he ertainly isn't uing it now.

In alt.fan.tolkien Bill O'Meally wrote: > So, the battery on my 8-year-old Macbook decided it will no longer hold > a charge. Rather than replacing the battery, I decided to upgrade to a > new machine. My new Macbook is loaded with Big Sur, wheras my old one > has Catalina OS. To my chagrin, Big Sur does not seem to support my > newsreader, Unison (I am writing this on my constantly plugged-in old > computer). A quick web search appears to confirm this. Another nail in > the coffin of usenet?! > > Options appear to include include: > 1) Periodically firing up the old Mac to read and post on newsgroups > 2) Hope that this is just a glitch with Big Sur and that Apple will > correct it with an upgrade > 3) Search for another newsreader that is supported by Big Sur > 4) Say, "Oh well. I guess that's it for usenet for me. It was a good run". > > Any advice? Get a shell account on a place with a news server/reader? Get a unix box? -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

I'm using it successfully as far as I've gotten (just a few minutes) on Big Sur. It worked fine on Catalina even though it's not supposed to. Only problem I've found so far is that click-selecting is not working. IOW to expand and collapse threads. The arrow keys substitute, but an item has to be active first, so if you're stepping down in a list you need to down arrow, click, down arrow, click, etc. OOps. I can't drag and drop to select a group from the "all" list. I'm working on that now. People who say you have to move on from Unison don't understand what Unison does in terms of browsing. The more modern substitutes work fine for getting at newsgroups that have been indexed, but you need Unison (or another application on a Windows box) to actually browse all the groups.

Transformed" section of /Morgoth's Ring/: ...Morgoth held the Orcs in dire thraldom; for in their corruption they had lost almost all possibility of resisting the domination of his will. So great indeed did its pressure upon them become ere Angband fell that, if he turned his thought towards them, they were conscious of his 'eye' wherever they might be. We know with absolute certainty that Morgoth had a huge but humanoid physical form during the First Age, so "eye" here obviously refers to his will. The similarity between this description and the many references to Sauron's "Eye" is striking, which seems to make the meaning of that term clear. ------- 12. What were the names of the Nazgul? The only known text to name any of the Nazgul is "The Hunt for the Ring" in /Unfinished Tales/. It names "the second to the Chief, Khamul the Shadow of the East" as Sauron's lieutenant in Dol Guldur; in a previous draft, he was called "the Second Chief (the Black Easterling)". Some believe that Gothmog, the lieutenant of Morgul, was also a Nazgul; see question III.B.13 for further discussion. Some people have used the name "Angmar" to refer to the Witch King. We know of no instance in which Tolkien used "Angmar" as a personal name; in his writings it always refers to the Witch King's country. Some still defend the use of "Angmar" as a convenient nickname, but as others find this irritating it is probably best avoided. ------- 13. What was Gothmog (the lieutenant of Morgul)? Gothmog (who shares his name with the Lord of Balrogs in the First Age) took command of Sauron's forces after the Witch-king was destroyed. Some believe that like the Mouth of Sauron he was human, while others claim that so responsible a position in Minas Morgul would only be given to another Nazgul. Several other possibilities also arise repeatedly. There seems to be no explicit evidence for any particular answer. ------- 14. What was the origin of Orcs? [This updates question V.G.1 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] Tolkien never seems to have firmly resolved this question in his own mind, let alone on paper. While /The Silmarillion/ as published states fairly clearly that Orcs were corrupted Elves, /Unfinished Tales/ hints that some strains of Orcs may have been bred from the Druedain. Tolkien's latest writings on the issue (found in Texts VIII-X of the "Myths Transformed" section in /Morgoth's Ring/) show him considering many possible origins: corrupted Elves, corrupted Men, very minor Maiar (a small number of original Orcish leaders only), or even beasts given fragments of Morgoth's own will so they would have some measure of independence. Some combination of these origins seems most likely from the texts, though the last of them was probably rejected. All of these suggested origins still support the notion that Orcs reproduced in the same manner as other races (and therefore that there were female Orcs). This is explicitly discussed in Text X of "Myths Transformed", which states that Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. The role of female Orcs in their society is not at all clear. ------- 15. Were Orcs immortal, and what happened to them after death? Given that Tolkien never firmly decided on the origin of Orcs (as discussed in question III.B.14), it is unsurprising that little is known about their fate. It seems clear that creatures descended even in part from humans would be mortal (as the Princes of Dol Amroth were; Elrond and his kin were special exceptions). In one his many conflicting essays about Orcs (Text X of "Myths Transformed" in /Morgoth's Ring/), Tolkien does give a direct answer to these questions: They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been by nature short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain. The apparent clarity of this statement may be misleading, considering the frequency with which Tolkien made and contradicted assertions about Orcs in the "Myths Transformed" texts. There are several reasons to believe that at least some Orcs had very long lives. One of the strongest is based on the death dates of the Orc Azog and his son Bolg. Azog was killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar in 2799, while Bolg was killed at the Battle of Five Armies in 2941. Thus, Bolg was still alive and strong over 140 years after his conception. More circumstantial evidence can be found in "The Choices of Master Samwise", when Sam overhears Gorbag speaking to Shagrat: '...if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own... somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses.' 'Ah!' said Shagrat. 'Like old times.' At this time, Sauron had been openly ruling Mordor for sixty-eight years, but Shagrat and Gorbag seem to recall a time when he wasn't in charge. This could mean that they were over seventy years old, that it took Sauron many years to establish firm control over his minions, or that they heard stories of "old times" from their elders. Gorbag also makes reference to "the Great Siege", which might refer either to the siege of the Last Alliance on Mordor or to the siege of Angband in the First Age, but it is less clear that he actually remembers it. Similarly, the goblins who captured Bilbo and Thorin in /The Hobbit/ had a surprisingly clear memory of the swords from Gondolin that they called "Beater and Biter", but there are explanations for that other than personal experience. As for their fate after death, this would depend very much on their origins (again, refer to question III.B.14). Beasts would presumably not /have/ a fate after death, and it seems likely that creatures descended even in part from Men would share their Gift and leave the world. Near the end of Text VIII of "Myths Transformed", Tolkien comments that if there were an Elvish strain among Orcs, "dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End." It also seems possible that Orcish spirits would refuse the summons to Mandos, as discussed in question III.B.6 of this FAQ; it is even conceivable that they could be reborn or re-embodied if they then returned to Morgoth or Sauron. ------- 16. What was the relationship between Orcs and Goblins? [This supplements question V.F.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] The words "Orc" and "Goblin" are essentially identical in meaning, but Tolkien's inconsistent usage in /The Hobbit/ has led to considerable confusion. Still, a clear answer comes from Tolkien's introductory note to later editions of that book, which explains that /Orc/ is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated /goblin/ (or /hobgoblin/ for the larger kinds). /Orc/ is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures. Some have taken this and other comments in /The Hobbit/ (such as the reference to "the big ones, the orcs of the mountains" near the end of "Riddles in the Dark") to mean that "Goblins" were smaller and "Orcs" larger. However, Tolkien did not generally make this distinction. For instance, the name /Orcrist/ is translated "Goblin-cleaver" in all editions of /The Hobbit/. Another clear example comes from the chapter "The Riders of Rohan" in LotR, when the companions reach the edge of Fangorn: Upon a stake in the middle was set a great goblin head; upon its shattered helm the white badge could still be seen. The white badge makes it all but certain that this was one of the large Uruk-hai. In fact, it seems plausible that this was the head of Ugluk himself, slain after a climactic fight sword to sword with Eomer at the end of the battle. If one of the Uruk-hai could be called a goblin, any Orc could. ------- 17. What was the origin of Saruman's Uruk-hai? Whatever the details of their origins, all evidence indicates that like all Orcs, Saruman's Uruk-hai were bred "naturally" by mating humanoid creatures who then bore live young. The real questions are whether it was Sauron or Saruman who planned that breeding, and what stock they were bred from. It is important that the meaning of "Uruk-hai" be clear from the start. Appendix F says that "the word /uruk/ of the Black Speech... was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." As for the plural, the index of /Unfinished Tales/ says that "Uruks" is an "Anglicized form of /Uruk-hai/ of the Black Speech". A similar translation is provided in Parma Eldalamberon 17 within Tolkien's explanatory note for the first appearance of the Ring verse: The debased form of the B. S. which survived in the Third Age only in the Dark Tower is seen in a few names (as Uruk-hai 'Orc-folk') In addition to the translation, this shows that the term "Uruk-hai" was used in both Isengard and Mordor. It is not clear whether, at the end of the Third Age, the term "Uruk" referred to all "great soldier-orcs" or to a specific breed of them. According to Appendix A, the race of Uruks first appeared out of Mordor in the last years of Steward Denethor I, before TA 2475. If "Uruk" is the name of a specific Orc breed, then this proves that Saruman had no hand in their creation. However, by the time of LotR there is some evidence that several breeds had that name: the companies of Ugluk, Shagrat, and Gorbag were all Uruks, and they differed at least slightly in size and appearance (for example, Sam observed that Gorbag's troop's gear was "a better fit" than Shagrat's). Still, this evidence is not conclusive; it seems that we cannot determine the meaning of the word /Uruk/ itself without answering the larger question. As for Saruman, it is well established that he conducted a breeding program crossing Orcs (quite possibly Uruks) with humans. Immediately following the quotation from /Morgoth's Ring/ cited in question III.B.14 (Text X of "Myths Transformed") which describes Morgoth's technique of mating Orcs with Men, Tolkien says that There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile. While this is the only explicit statement of Saruman's deeds, there are numerous comments in LotR about Orclike Men and Manlike Orcs associated with Isengard. The most direct comments come from the chapter "Treebeard", where Treebeard ponders Saruman's Orcs: For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun, but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil! The close agreement between Treebeard's thoughts here and the explicit statement in /Morgoth's Ring/ makes it seem very likely that this was Tolkien's intent. The remaining question is whether Saruman's Uruk-hai were the "Men-orcs" from his breeding program. This seems likely, but it is difficult to find solid proof. (Treebeard's comments about the Isengarders' tolerance of sunlight may support this view, but it is hard to prove that Uruks of Mordor lacked that tolerance.) ------- 18. What was the origin of Trolls? [This updates question V.G.2 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] It is not at all clear. One piece of information comes from Treebeard's statement (in the chapter "Treebeard") that Trolls were made "in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves". However, this probably only means that Ents gave Morgoth the idea for Trolls, not that the two races are actually related: the two races have almost nothing in common except great strength. Also, in Letter #153, Tolkien discusses this very quote and says that "Treebeard is a /character/ in my story, not me... and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand." One of Tolkien's more direct comments on the origin of Trolls comes a few lines later in that letter. He says of the Trolls in /The Hobbit/ that I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence ... they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls, beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. At least when he wrote this in 1954, then, it seems that Tolkien believed that the Stone-trolls in particular were barely even independent beings, relying on some sort of "spell" or external will for their existence. Another direct statement about Trolls can be found at the end of Text IX of the "Myths Transformed" section of /Morgoth's Ring/ (probably written in the late 1950s): The Elves would have classed the creatures called 'trolls' (in /The Hobbit/ and /The Lord of the Rings/) as Orcs - in character and origin - but they were larger and slower. It would seem evident that they were corruptions of primitive human types. Christopher comments that "he seems to have been thinking... specifically of the /Olog-hai/, the great Trolls who appeared at the end of the Third Age (as stated in Appendix F)", quite likely in part on the basis of the comment in Appendix F that "Some held that [the /Olog-hai/] were not Trolls but giant Orcs". However, Tolkien's mention of /The Hobbit/ in this quote suggests that its "Stone-trolls" were meant to be included as well, and Appendix F goes on to say "but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind... Trolls they were..." which suggests that all Trolls were fundamentally the same, and different than Orcs. It is not clear how to reconcile these statements, though the evidence from LotR naturally carries the greatest weight. In any case, Tolkien's indecision about the origin of Orcs in /Morgoth's Ring/ (as discussed in question III.B.14) almost certainly applies even more strongly to the passing comment regarding Trolls quoted above. ------- 19. What were the giants (seen by Bilbo in /The Hobbit/)? Nobody knows. Among texts considered to be at all canonical (see question III.A.2), giants are mentioned directly only in /The Hobbit/. This has led some to doubt their literal existence entirely, but they do seem to have a firm place in that book: giants (and the destruction they caused) were seen and heard by everyone, and both Thorin and Gandalf were worried about them. Later, Gandalf says "I must see if I can't find a more or less decent giant" to block up the goblins' new gate (where the group was captured). He also mentions them to Beorn. It would be difficult to reject giants without rejecting /The Hobbit/ as a canonical source entirely, which Tolkien clearly did not do. Some believe that the voices heard by the Fellowship on the Redhorn pass were giants, or even that Caradhras itself was a "giant" in some sense. Three explanations for giants are relatively common. Perhaps the most natural is that they are an exceptionally large race of humans. Another is that they are a very large breed of troll, which could explain why they are not seen away from the mountains: they would need very large caves in which to hide from the sun. Finally, they could be "nature spirits" associated with mountains (and possibly with storms); this, too, would explain why they were only seen there. (Some discussion of this can be found in my essay on Tom Bombadil, mentioned in question III.B.3) There is no clear evidence for or against any of these possibilities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ III.C. STORY INTERNAL QUESTIONS: HISTORY AND HAPPENINGS 1. Why didn't they just have an Eagle fly the Ring to Mt. Doom? This debate is most interesting when limited to "story internal" arguments (i.e. "Otherwise it would be a dull book" is a cop-out). One possibility is that there were no Eagles available when they were needed. Another common argument is that Mordor was well defended, while the Eagles were wary even of shepherds with bows. It may have been an issue of secrecy: a group of Eagles far from the Misty Mountains flying toward Mordor might well have drawn Sauron's attention, and might have even hinted at the plan to destroy the Ring. Some suggest that like the Istari, the Eagles were forbidden by the Valar to help so directly. Another suggestion is that Frodo may have needed the long journey to (hopefully) develop enough strength of will to cast the Ring into the Fire. Many other explanations are seen repeatedly as well. In the end, most participants tend to agree that an Eagle taking the Ring to Mount Doom would not have worked. But that is not the end of the discussion. Even if those objections are valid, many believe that this topic should have come up at the Council of Elrond (after all, the book shows discussions of other flawed options there, like sending the Ring to Bombadil or throwing it into the Sea). And some people still think that making use of the Eagles would have been effective (even if only for part of the journey, rather than flying all the way to Mordor). These aspects of the question remain unresolved. ------- 2. Were the barrow blades magical? In what way? The swords that the Hobbits got from the Barrow Downs were apparently magical in some way: in "The Departure of Boromir", Aragorn says this of Merry and Pippin's blades: Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor. Some have objected that Men could not use magic "spells", as Tolkien discusses in Letter #155: "'magic' in this story... is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." However, against this in the margin Tolkien wrote, "But the Numenoreans used 'spells' in making swords?" (and he omitted the whole discussion of magic from the final version of the letter). The magic of the blades is confirmed in /The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion/ by Hammond and Scull. In their final comment on the chapter "A Knife in the Dark", they quote from an unpublished portion of Tolkien's essay "The Hunt for the Ring". Explaining the Witch-king's thoughts after Weathertop, Tolkien writes that Frodo "had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction", and that a wound from a barrow blade "would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife [sic] to Frodo (as was proved in the end)". /Unfinished Tales/ indicates that all versions of "The Hunt for the Ring" were written between the publication of FotR and the completion of RotK, so this reflects Tolkien's view while writing the story. Even apart from this unpublished essay, there are several reasons to believe that the barrow blades were particularly harmful to the Nazgul. A major piece of evidence is the effect of Merry's blade on the Witch King, as discussed in question III.C.4 (which should be read as part of this entry). A related quote comes from Letter #210, where Tolkien compares that case to what would have happened if Sam had "[sunk] his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh" on Weathertop: "the result would have been much the same...: the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed." In earlier drafts of LotR, the text itself was explicit that the Nazgul feared the barrow blades: in the chapter "At Rivendell" of /The Return of the Shadow/, Gandalf refers to them as "the one kind of sword the Riders fear." Although no such statement survived into the final text, it is apparent that this remained Tolkien's intent. Question III.C.3 discusses how the barrow blades were part of the reason the Nazgul did not take the Ring at Weathertop (and should also be read as part of this entry). We know almost nothing about whether the barrow blades had any special effect on other evil creatures. In "Flotsam and Jetsam", Merry says that Ugluk (leader of the Uruk-hai band) took the swords but then "threw the things away as if they burned him." However, this may just be a poetic description of the normal fear mentioned by Aragorn in the first quote above. ------- 3. Why didn't the Nazgul take the Ring at Weathertop? The Nazgul withdrew from Weathertop despite a five-against-one fighting advantage and with the One Ring almost within their grasp. Many share Aragorn's confusion about this: "I cannot think why they have gone and do not attack again." The true reason appears to have been a combination of several factors. Aragorn's analysis in "Flight to the Ford" is least in part accurate: I don't think they expected to be resisted... They will come again another night, if we cannot escape. They are only waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much further. Many have considered this explanation inadequate: the Ring seems like too great a prize for the Nazgul to take such foolish caution. Some quote Letter #210 where Tolkien says that the Nazgul "have no great physical power against the fearless", arguing that Aragorn was able to drive them away. However, this quote does not preclude them from having "normal" physical power, and the Witch King was willing to do battle with skilled warriors at other times. Tolkien's most detailed explanation of this issue has recently been published in /The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion/ by Hammond and Scull. In their final note on "A Knife in the Dark", they quote from a previously unpublished portion of Tolkien's essay "The Hunt for the Ring" discussing the Witch-king's thoughts after Weathertop (already mentioned in question III.C.2). The first factor mentioned is that "the Bearer has been marked with the Knife and (he [the Witch-king] thinks) cannot last more than a day or two". But more important, the Witch-king appears to have been afraid: Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife [sic] to Frodo (as was proved in the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and /fear/ both of Aragorn and especially of /Frodo/. The excerpt says that his fear of Frodo was a combination of several factors, including Frodo's ability to resist attack at all, his use of an "enchanted sword" (presumably gained after overcoming a Barrow-wight), and his use of the name /Elbereth/, "a name of terror to the Nazgul" that connected Frodo to the High Elves. Realizing for the first time that this mission to find the Ring "was one of great peril to himself", the Witch-king fled, until "fear of Sauron, and the forces of Sauron's will" drove him back to the hunt. (/Unfinished Tales/ indicates that all versions of "The Hunt for the Ring" were written between the publication of FotR and the completion of RotK, so this passage does reflect Tolkien's belief while writing the story.) Evidence for much of this can be found in the text itself. After remarking that Frodo's sword had not harmed the Witch King, Aragorn says, "More deadly to [the Witch King] was the name of Elbereth." This idea is clearer in an early draft: in /The Return of the Shadow/ ("At Rivendell"), a fragment includes Gandalf saying, "Not to mention courage - and also swords and a strange and ancient name. Later on I must be told about that curious sword of yours, and how you knew the name of Elbereth." (Presumably Gandalf is discussing this very question.) However, the name was probably not a major factor on its own: in the final text it is Aragorn who comments on "Elbereth", but he did not attempt to use it during the attack himself. As discussed in question III.C.2, the danger to the Nazgul from the barrow blades can also be guessed from the text, though it is by no means clear. The description of the attack on Weathertop is consistent with the idea that they fear such weapons: after Frodo put on the Ring, three of the wraiths rushed towards him. Desperate, he drew his own sword, and it seemed to him that it flickered red, as if it was a firebrand. Two of the figures halted. The third... sprang forward and bore down on Frodo. All of the wraiths seem to have left immediately after the Witch King stabbed Frodo. As Frodo was seeing into the "wraith world" with the Ring on, some read the description of his sword flickering red as an indication that its magical power was directly visible there. Later, as half-faded Frodo faces the Nazgul at the Ford, he draws his sword "with a red flash". This evidence is not entirely convincing on its own, but in light of Tolkien's writings in "The Hunt for the Ring" it appears to be quite solid. ------- 4. Who killed the Witch-king, Merry or Eowyn? Most agree that Eowyn's stroke was the immediate cause of the Witch-king's death: she certainly struck /something/, and his death cry and disappearance followed immediately after her blow. The primary debate is whether Merry's role was simply to provide a distraction, or whether his sword (taken from the Barrow Downs) was necessary to break some "spell of protection" that would otherwise have guarded the Witch-king from harm. Question III.C.2 discusses the magical nature of the hobbits' barrow blades and their effect on the Nazgul. In the context of Merry's encounter with the Witch King in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields", the crucial statement is that No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will. (See question III.C.2 for a related quote and further discussion.) Most read this quote as a direct statement that Merry's sword was especially harmful to the Nazgul, which is confirmed in other writings (as discussed in the earlier question). It is less clear what "spell" is being broken: some read this as a poetic description of a (nonmagical) collapse due to (possibly magical) great pain, while others take it to mean that the Nazgul had only indirect, magical control over their physical bodies. Based in part on this quote, some go even farther and suggest that the Witch King was immune to physical weapons before being hit by the barrow blade. No clear answer is known. It is worth taking particular note of the quote from portions of "The Hunt for the Ring" first published in Hammond and Scull's /Reader's Companion/ (and discussed in questions III.C.2 and III.C.3), indicating that a wound from a barrow blade "would have been as deadly to [the Witch-king] as the Mordor-knife [sic] to Frodo (as was proved in the end)". The parenthetical remark must refer to Merry's blow, and could be read in a wide variety of ways. It might mean that Merry's blow was indeed the "deadly" one, or that it would have proven deadly within hours or days if Eowyn had not made the point moot, or simply that it provided a deadly distraction. ------- 5. Did Frodo and the other mortals who passed over the Sea eventually die? [This updates question V.C.1 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] While he seems to have been initially unsure, Tolkien eventually made it clear that mortals who sailed to the West would remain mortal. In Letter #154, he explains this: ...the mythical idea underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed for ever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world. He makes a similar comment in Letter #246, saying that Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him - if that could be done, /before he died/. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide for ever on earth, or within Time. An interesting addendum to these statements can be found in the appendix to the "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" in /Morgoth's Ring/. After explaining that the spirits of dead mortals go to the halls of Mandos, and that only Mandos and Manwe know where they go "after the time of recollection in those silent halls", Tolkien makes the following comment on Frodo: The sojourn of Frodo in Eressea - then on to Mandos? - was only an extended form of this. Frodo would eventually leave the world (desiring to do so). So that the sailing in ship was equivalent to death. This leads to the fascinating (if uncertain) suggestion that Frodo and the other mortals who went West may have gone to Mandos while still physically alive. ------- 6. Did Sam follow Frodo into the West? While LotR strongly implies that Sam eventually sailed West, it never says so explicitly. In "The Grey Havens", Frodo says to Sam, "Your time may come." Appendix B says that in S.Y. 1482, Sam was last seen by Elanor in the Tower Hills, and that "the tradition [was] handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea". However, Letter #154 makes Tolkien's intent clear. In it, he writes that certain 'mortals'... may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo ... and Bilbo, and eventually Sam. Whether Frodo was still alive when Sam reached Elvenhome is uncertain, but it does seem possible: in the same letter, Tolkien says that mortals in the West "can and will 'die' - of free will", so Frodo may have waited to pass on until Sam arrived. ------- 7. What is known about the Blue Wizards? [This supplements question V.E.2 of the Tolkien FAQ.] The Tolkien FAQ discusses most of what is known about the other two Istari (out of five). As explained there, the essay on the Istari in /Unfinished Tales/ tells us that their names in Valinor were Alatar and Pallando, and that they went into the east of Middle-earth and did not return. In that essay and in Letter #211, Tolkien suggests that they may have failed in their missions, though he never said that was certain. A small amount of new information on the Blue Wizards appeared in the "Last Writings" section of /The Peoples of Middle-earth/. One interesting point is that Tolkien seems to have considered the idea that Saruman "was letting out a piece of private information" when he revealed their existence by mentioning "the rods of the Five Wizards" in /The Two Towers/. In another passage, Tolkien gives other names for the Blue Wizards, "Morinehtar" and "Romestamo" ("Darkness-slayer" and "East-helper"), and suggests that the Blue Wizards came to Middle-earth in the Second Age (much earlier than the other Istari) in the company of Glorfindel (for which possibility see question III.B.7). In this writing, he is considerably more optimistic about their success: They must have had very great influence on the history of the Second Age and Third Age in weakening and disarraying the forces of East ... who would both in the Second Age and Third Age otherwise have ... outnumbered the West. ------- 8. Who was aware that a Balrog lived in Moria? Sauron almost certainly knew of the Balrog, at least through his Orcs and very possibly more directly. The Dwarves knew that "Durin's Bane" was still in Moria when Dain saw it inside the gate at the battle of Azanulbizar, but they may not have known what it was: at the Council of Elrond, Gloin calls it simply "the nameless fear." In "Lothlorien", Celeborn tells the Fellowship, "We long have feared that under Caradhras a terror slept." This indicates that he wasn't

Paul S Person schrieb: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 19:53:11 -0500, Bill O'Meally > wrote: >>I just spent the last 24 hours trying to get set up on (not so) >>Easynews. Very frustrating. I told them to cancel my subscription >>immediately. >> >>Thunderbird sounds worth a shot. Meanwhile, just firing up the old >>computer to periodically read and respond to articles appears the best >>way to go. > It's amazing how often old technology just keeps on truckin' while the > new stuff is mired in it's own undeniable superiority. The tendency in software is to increase bloat slightly faster than computers get better, so the overall user experience gets worse.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 19:53:11 -0500, Bill O'Meally wrote: >On 2021-02-15 20:38:21 +0000, Michael F. Stemper said: > >>> >> >> Well, a quick search shows that there are other Usenet clients for Apple >> devices; even Thunderbird (which I use from Linux). I know nothing of >> the Apple ecosystem, however. > >I just spent the last 24 hours trying to get set up on (not so) >Easynews. Very frustrating. I told them to cancel my subscription >immediately. > >Thunderbird sounds worth a shot. Meanwhile, just firing up the old >computer to periodically read and respond to articles appears the best >way to go. It's amazing how often old technology just keeps on truckin' while the new stuff is mired in it's own undeniable superiority. -- "I begin to envy Petronius." "I have envied him long since."

On 2021-02-15 20:38:21 +0000, Michael F. Stemper said: >> > > Well, a quick search shows that there are other Usenet clients for Apple > devices; even Thunderbird (which I use from Linux). I know nothing of > the Apple ecosystem, however. I just spent the last 24 hours trying to get set up on (not so) Easynews. Very frustrating. I told them to cancel my subscription immediately. Thunderbird sounds worth a shot. Meanwhile, just firing up the old computer to periodically read and respond to articles appears the best way to go. -- Bill O'Meally

Fred Smith schrieb: > Would Sauron use a Mac or a PC? Sauron uses a centralized mainframe system. He's probably sitting in front of his Blinkenlights console in Barad-dur and waiting for the microcode that he mislaid during the War of the Last Alliance. In the meantime, thousands of Orcs are sitting at their 029 keypunches slavishly churning out Cobol code and JCL, while a few Hobbits are sneaking around the corner with a PDP-11 running an early version of UNIX.

On 2021-02-15, John W Kennedy wrote: > On 2/15/21 1:59 PM, Bill O'Meally wrote: >> So, the battery on my 8-year-old Macbook decided it will no longer hold >> a charge. Rather than replacing the battery, I decided to upgrade to a >> new machine. My new Macbook is loaded with Big Sur, wheras my old one >> has Catalina OS. To my chagrin, Big Sur does not seem to support my >> newsreader, Unison (I am writing this on my constantly plugged-in old >> computer). A quick web search appears to confirm this. Another nail in >> the coffin of usenet?! >> >> Options appear to include include: >> 1) Periodically firing up the old Mac to read and post on newsgroups >> 2) Hope that this is just a glitch with Big Sur and that Apple will >> correct it with an upgrade >> 3) Search for another newsreader that is supported by Big Sur >> 4) Say, "Oh well. I guess that's it for usenet for me. It was a good run". > > Unison is a dead product, and has been for years. Thunderbird should > work, but I can???t be sure because my system is too old for Big Sur; I???m > waiting for the next-generation Macbook Pro. But I know that Thunderbird > runs on Catalina. > Is this some sort of new palantir thingy? Didn't know they needed batteries or operating systems. Would Sauron use a Mac or a PC?

On 2/15/21 1:59 PM, Bill O'Meally wrote: > So, the battery on my 8-year-old Macbook decided it will no longer hold > a charge. Rather than replacing the battery, I decided to upgrade to a > new machine. My new Macbook is loaded with Big Sur, wheras my old one > has Catalina OS. To my chagrin, Big Sur does not seem to support my > newsreader, Unison (I am writing this on my constantly plugged-in old > computer). A quick web search appears to confirm this. Another nail in > the coffin of usenet?! > > Options appear to include include: > 1) Periodically firing up the old Mac to read and post on newsgroups > 2) Hope that this is just a glitch with Big Sur and that Apple will > correct it with an upgrade > 3) Search for another newsreader that is supported by Big Sur > 4) Say, "Oh well. I guess that's it for usenet for me. It was a good run". Unison is a dead product, and has been for years. Thunderbird should work, but I can't be sure because my system is too old for Big Sur; I'm waiting for the next-generation Macbook Pro. But I know that Thunderbird runs on Catalina. -- John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"