Slashdot Mirror

I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.

Gollum was a Hobbit

It was widely reported several years ago that cats had been surgically modified to contain bugging instruments, a small power supply, and a broadcasting antenna that ran the length of the animal's tail.

I believe the original test subjects were released in NYC and were dead within 24 hours. See, one of the requirements for the plan to be fruitful was a high population density to increase the chance of picking up something interesting... unfortunately the level of traffic in these areas is not healthy for stray kitties with no street experience. The surgery also included a type of disabling of the cat's hunger response so that it would stay in the vicinity of the area it was released and not go running off immediately in search of food.

Here is one link to info, but I am not familiar with the site or their specific version of events: http://mprofaca.cro.net/spycats.html.

The NPR archives should turn something up as that is where I first heard of project 'Acoustic Kitty.'

Regards.

Didn't they know that?
But seriously, the CIA tried something like that with a cat: http://mprofaca.cro.net/spycats.html "They tested him and tested him. They found he would walk off the job when he got hungry, so they put another wire in to override that."
And there have always been rumors about the Navy training dolphins. Given how capable trained dolphins are, that wouldn't be too surprising to me.
But squirrels? Can squirrels be trained? Why mess around with trained squirrels when they can use paid humans?
----------
Mailboxes Etc in Beverly Hills

Song About Old Troll
Troll sat alone on his seat of stone,
And munched and mumbled a bare old bone;
For many a year he had gnawed it near,
For meat was hard to come by.
Done by! Gum by!
In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone,
And meat was hard to come by.
http://tolkien.cro.net/talesong/troll.html

For those of us who have been following the films since they were announced in 1998, it was well known that New Line, because of the enormous financial risk involved (unknown director, B/C-list actors, source material that had been deemed "unfilmable"), had heavily pre-sold the film to raise the requisite production capital.

Also, by Jackson's own account on the "making of" features on FOTR:EE, It was Shaye who, as a long time fan of the trilogy, insisted on three films rather than Jackson's initial pitch of two films. Shaye had basically bet the entire studio on Jackson's trilogy. New Line also insisted on making the trilogy films simultaneously. This article gives a good accounting of the process: http://tolkien.cro.net/
The article makes it clear and it wasn't a secret, that those involved would make relatively little on the first film but would be entitled to greater percentages of the gross on TTT and ROTK. Credit has to be given to New Line and Peter Jackson for the resulting trilogy. I'm of the opinion that the success of the FOTR (which helped ensure the success of subsequent films) was due mostly to its fidelity to the book. As a movie, it is extremely well done. It's also fairly faithful as an adaptation. Neither can be said about TTT and ROTK.

Gandalf descending into the pits of hell, fighting with a flame demon, to be risen as "the white"? That kinda reminds me to Jesus' resurrection.

...Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

I have long ceased to invent ... : I wait till I seem to know what really happened. Or till it writes itself. Thus, though I knew for years that Frodo would run into a tree-adventure somewhere far down the Great River, I have no recollection of inventing Ents. I came at last to the point, and write the 'Treebeard' chapter without any recollection of any previous thought: just as it now is. And then I saw that, of course, it had not happened to Frodo at all.

[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 231 (#180)]

Google knows all, Google tells all

Steuard Jensen has a differing opinion. Both Hargrove's and Jensen's essays are referenced in the The Encyclopedia of Arda entry.

From William D. B. Loos' essay:

As to Tom's nature, there are several schools of thought.

He was a Maia (the most common notion). The reasoning here is plain: given the Middle-earth cast of characters as we know it, this is the most convenient pigeonhole in which to place him (and Goldberry as well) (most of the other individuals in The Lord of the Rings with "mysterious" origins: Gandalf, Sauron, Wizards, and Balrogs did in fact turn out to be Maiar).

He was IlÃvatar. The only support for this notion is on theological grounds: some have interpreted Goldberry's statement to Frodo (F: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" G: "He is.") as a form of the Christian "I am that am", which really could suggest the Creator. Tolkien rejected this interpretation quite firmly.

T.A. Shippey (in The Road to Middle-earth) and others have suggested that Tom is a one-of-a-kind type. This notion received indirect support from Tolkien himself....

For the ill-informed conspiracy theorists out there, you might wish to read this.

And for those of you who say that public schools aren't turning out good work, you may wish to visit a less meticulous analysis (author unknown) from DPS.

conclusive proof that Gollum/Smeagol == hobbit

conclusive proof that Gollum/Smeagol == hobbit

Anyway, some pretty interesting info on the aforementioned scene with Gollum can be found here.

As far as inconsistencies are concerned, I think we should remember when talking about Tolkien that he always concerned himself to be a historian, telling the tale of the War of the Ring, and earlier, The Hobbit. There are several points in LotR that when Tolkien was questioned on, he was "uncertain" as to what exactly, was going on, until he took some time to do more "research." Example: it was unclear for a long time whether the Glorfindel that helps Aragorn and the hobbits at the end of Book I, in The Fellowship of the Ring, was indeed the same Glorfindel that fled the fall of the City of Gondolin in the First Age. Tolkien's notes (those published after his death in The History of Middle-earth) seemed to indicate that he had decided the characters were one and the same. However, it is certain he conceived of the characters separately, and he simply accidentally reused the name.

My point, then, seems to be that a good strategy for a writer is to claim he's merely interpreting ancient history, from dusty old notes, so no wonder if occasionally a few errors pop up in one's writing.... It worked for Tolkien -- when was the last time you saw anyone criticizing his works on the basis of internal inconsistencies? (not that there are many of them)

For the people complaining about Tom Bombadil, he wasn't really NEEDED in a movie version. The enigma of Tom is that he represented the *reader*. He was a safety net of sorts for the reader, a character of goodness who could remained unharmed by the evils in Middle-earth, even from Sauron et al.

Here is a great analysis of Tom

CNN has been caught employing CIA agents and many accuse the CIA of employing CNN reporters.