Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Great Point About Gender/Racial "Balance" on the Supreme Court | Main | A Shocker Of A Picture »
November 02, 2005

Authenticity, Extremism, And Racism

Michael Steele's black opponents pelt him with Oreos, to symbolize he's an Uncle Tom traitor to his race.

"Party trumps race," they say.

If only.


"Party trumping race" would be a good thing. Indeed, that seems to be what Michael Steele is doing -- choosing a party, or philosophy (and thence a party) without viewing that choice through a racial prism.

It is generally a good thing when anything -- personality type, culture, philosophy, politics, even pop-music taste -- trumps race. Would anyone suppose that it's a good thing that there should be a Racially-Authentic Standard for beliefs, tastes, and aspiration?

Apparently some do. Those who pelt Steele with Oreos say "Party trumps Race," but they're lying, perhaps to themselves. For them, Race trumps everything else. After all, there are lots of people with similar views to Steele; they're not being pelted with Oreos, or being singled out as "inauthentic" or "traitors."

No, what bothers them about Steele is that he's bucking the Racially Correct identity-politics line. If he were white, they would barely care. Just another white Republican they don't like. It's his race, and his presumed betrayal of his racial brethren and their racial interests, that draws the ire.

Let's just note something quickly-- I could not call Naked Testicle Spiderman a "traitor to the white race" without being (justifiably) scorned. Were I even to suggest that white people owe fealty to their own racial interests -- the interests of the, for lack of a better word, Volk -- I'd be accused of quasi-Naziism.

And rightly so. Nazis talk in precisely that manner. You are to be white-- authentically white, buying all the "real" white beliefs and tastes and manners, and dedicated to advancing the white race -- or you are a traitor to the white race.

A sell-out.

I don't want to descend into needless vulgarity, but there's another pretty vicious term Nazis use when they see a white person cottoning a little too much to black folks for their liking. Nigger-lover. It's a doubly hateful word-- maybe triply; who can keep track?

Is there much difference between Nazis calling black-liking whites "Nigger-lovers" and black racial chauvanists calling Michael Steele an Uncle Tom and Oreo, apart from the use of the forbidden N-word? The charge is the same: You are a traitor to the race. You cravenly and inauthentically have chosen to tolerate or even like another race over your own.

The caveat here, as I've said before, is that blacks and other minorities get a little leeway here, due to legitimate past injustices and etc. History mitigates the sin of black racism, or black racial chauvanism. But just because a sin is mitigated and made less egregious does not make it tolerable or praiseworthy.

Which brings up the quite-bad disease, most frequently striking the young and intellectually secure, of "authenticity" of some form or another.

"Authenticity" is nothing of the sort. Truly authentic people do not have to strive for authenticity; they are authentic and true to themselves. "Authenticity" as it is commonly meant denotes an attempt to model one's personality, tastes, and beliefs upon an external standard.

And it's artificial as all get out. Attempting to emulate some sort of paragon of what you think you should be is an artifical subversion of your own personality in favor of someone else's. (Let's ignore, for the moment, the quite-praiseworthy drive for most of us to be better, morally and ethically and such, than our natural drives would dictate.)

Teenagers do a lot of this, of course, as far as trivial matters go. They try to figure out what the "cool" stuff to like is and adopt those tastes. And then, when the "cool" stuff changes, they change too. When they get to college, they dump N'Sync and will only listen to brooding, socially-concerned singer-songwriters.

Because they're "authentic."

Everyone does this to some extent, but the effects are pretty pernicious when the "authenticity" strived for is a racial model of propriety. College kids start liking music they didn't like when they were younger partly out of changing tastes, but partly to differentiate themselves from those younger, less mature, less hip, less educated. An important part of "authenticity" is the feeling of superiority to others it grants you -- you are authentic, others are not. You are therefore better.

The Saudi Arabian fatwa against the Western "polytheist" rules of soccer are expressly an attempt at artificial "authenticity" and rejection of The Other, The Inferior. The rules are changed in trivial and silly ways not because it makes the game play better, but so those playing it by the new, Islamically-correct rules can differentiate themselves from, and thereby show their cultural superiority to, the objects of their hatred. Westerners, Americans, and Jews, in ascending order of contempt.

Reasonable society recognizes such hateful nonesense for what it is when whites (especially white Christians, of course) practice it. Why is it so difficult to see that what is bad for whites to do must also be bad for blacks, Muslims, and other minorities to practice?

The quest for authenticity is simultaneously a quest for insularity, as the entire point of the exercise is to separate oneself from the inauthentic and the sell-outs and the corrupt and the nonbelievers.

And that leads to extremism. Because the more like-minded and insular a group is, the more dedicated the group is to promoting an ideal of racial, religious, or cultural authenticity, the more extremists gain in influence.

Few young Muslim men in search of an identity they can call their own want to hear an Imam suggesting that the way to beat the West is to adopt the good parts of it and improve upon them. Those seeking an identity want to hear they're already better, that anyone unlike them is not only inferior but perhaps actually evil if not demonic.

The more insular a group is, the more succeptible it is to extremist thought. You don't gain attention by saying reasonable things. You gain attention by saying quite unreasonable things. And you count on the group to shout down anyone who might point out what you're saying is hateful or absurd.

Thus the Vietnam Veterans Against the War suddenly found themselves in a meeting at which they discussed assassinating US Senators in favor of the war. What is insanity outside a very insular and passionate group becomes heroic and wise inside of it; those who counsel against such extremism are seen as cowards and fools and tools of The Enemy.

And so it goes. Committed black-power partisans, dedicated to the notion of black solidarity, revile a black politician in offensive terms of racial treachery.

Young Muslim men, searching for an ideology that will assuage their feelings of cultural inferiority, seek out the most radical Imams who preach the most absurd, hateful, and medieval rantings about Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are not sufficiently Muslim.

And, yes, po' white trash, also lacking in self-esteem, embrace a racist ideology that says no matter how ugly, mean-tempered, criminal-minded, violent, immoral, stupid, uneducated, or useless you might be, you're one of God's Holy Pale Chosen. You're white, and you're all right.

And how do you argue against it from the outside? In all cases, you're not merely arguing with a philosophy or ideology. You're arguing against the major source of a person's sense of self-worth, the thing that makes him feel superior to others who don't share his vaunted "authenticity."

You can convince people of a lot of things, but it's pretty hard to get them to give up anything that props up their egos.

A person can be convinced that a fact is wrong, but he can almost never be convinced that he, as a person, isn't as special or superior as he's come to believe.


posted by Ace at 01:45 PM
Comments



Let's just note something quickly-- I could not call Naked Testicle Spiderman a "traitor to the white race" without being (justifiably) scorned.

Yes, because though Naked Testicle Spidyman has Balls of Blue, cut one open and they are still white (with a whole lot of red. oops!).

Posted by: on November 2, 2005 02:46 PM

Excellent post. Not sure why, but their tossing Oreos at the guy disgusted me in a way that the rhetoric, disgusting though it is, never has. Sort of a symbolic stoning. Dare I say, it was gobsmackingly vile.

Kudos too to Filet 'o Fish, who managed to slam Steele again today for shrugging off Ehrlich's appearance at a racially restricted club without noting that Democrats have appeared there too.

Posted by: Allah on November 2, 2005 02:48 PM

Great minds think alike Ace. I published a piece about this on my site at about the same time you did (after accounting for time zone differences).

I won't "link whore" and throw the article down here, but if you get a chance to read it and think it could serve as an update, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Posted by: Jack M. on November 2, 2005 02:48 PM

Dammit, Ace. Beat my post too, by *this* much. Plus, yours is better.

I must break you.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on November 2, 2005 02:49 PM

And you said, you couldn't handle the show all by yourself 'cus you'd run out of thing to say!

Posted by: JFH on November 2, 2005 02:49 PM

Well, Ace has a lot more time to think out his posts now that he has restricted comments and distracts us with naked testicle references.

Posted by: on November 2, 2005 02:53 PM

The comments aren't intentionally restricted. It's the monthly mu.nu comment glitch.

Posted by: ace on November 2, 2005 02:54 PM

And I suppose you are going to blame the Naked Testicle Spiderman references meant to distract us as a mu.nu glitch, too?

Posted by: on November 2, 2005 02:57 PM

Look, if this is the way they want it, fine. The next time Cynthia McKinny says Bush caused 9/11, the next time Louis Farrakhan rails against "whitey," or the next time Al Sharpton says something incredibly stupid, I am just going to attribute those to Oliver Willis and the rest of the black liberal bloggers. Hey, they all think alike anyway, right? Don't tell me they can think for themselves anymore, since they don't seem to want to have independent voices anymore.

So my question has to be to Oliver Willis - why DO you think Bush knew about 9/11?

Posted by: Mark on November 2, 2005 03:06 PM

The most insidious form of racism is the insistence that people's thoughts, values, and philosophies must conform to their skin color. I've been enheartened by recent indications that ideology was proving to be a stronger delineator than race, but this seems to be making those accustomed to playing the race card very unhappy.

Posted by: geoff on November 2, 2005 03:16 PM

I would also like Oliver to explain why he thinks that the CIA developed crack cocaine and introduced it into black neighborhoods.

Oh, this can be kind of fun!

Is Oliver going to be joining O.J. to find the "real" killers?

Stay black, bro!

Posted by: Mark on November 2, 2005 03:16 PM

...(T)here's another pretty vicious term Nazis use when they see a white person cottoning a little too much to black folks for their liking. Nigger-lover.

Sure, Ace. Go ahead. Steal all my best material. It's okay, maybe I'll just go back to my blog and post a Top-10 ripoff, or link to Paul Anka's home movies or somethin.

Lotsa loose shit rollin' around here today.

(great post, btw) ;-)

Posted by: The Black Republican on November 2, 2005 03:35 PM

50 Cent, the next "race traitor":

50 says he disagrees with West's infamous statement that "George Bush doesn't care about black people," proclaimed during a September telethon for Hurricane Katrina victims.

"I think people responded to it the best way they can," 50 told ContactMusic.com. "What Kanye West was saying, I don't know where that came from."

Though I doubt anyone will call him an Oreo. To his face, at least.

Posted by: Hubris on November 2, 2005 04:46 PM

Your post rings true on so many levels. It actually struck very close to something I observed earlier today.

A girl in one of the classes I teach was wearing a shirt that said, "The best girls are BLACK." That struck me as just dripping with racism.

I mean, what if we had her t-shirt say what it only directly says? "White women/latinas are inferior to black women." At least then the racism wouldn't be disguised any longer.

What if I wore a t-shirt that said, "The best men are WHITE." IF I made it into the building past the lynching mobs that day, I wouldn't make it inside the next, as Jessie Jackson would be there with a mob to prevent my access to the building!

The hypocrisy of racism is so utterly baffling. Apparently only white people are racists, and only non-white people can be the victims of racism (but only when the perpetrators are white themselves).

Posted by: Hal on November 2, 2005 05:01 PM

It's too bad that documentaries like this aren't shown on PBS's American Experience.

Wake up black people.

Posted by: The Ugly American on November 2, 2005 05:38 PM

Can you stop talking about that picture? I'm getting traumatic flashbacks just from its mention.

Posted by: someone on November 2, 2005 06:13 PM

One of the best you've ever written, Ace. No joke.

Posted by: Robbie on November 2, 2005 06:18 PM


"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott (a black Baltimore Democrat) said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."

Can we have that statement signed, notarized, and run off a coupla million copies ? We everyday, non-elected, working folks need to be able to hand this stuff out everytime we hear some similar accusation.

Posted by: Carl in N.H. on November 2, 2005 06:20 PM

I remember as a child the first black family to move into our area (early sixties). He was a jovial round bellied Santa type personality and we loved the guy. He had a bunch of kids, some older and some younger than us. An equipment operator by trade and lots of the local people (Norwegians, Germans, Finns, Belgians to mention some of the ancestral background ) hired him for various jobs. A fair man and did his job well.

Then we got our first television(BW) and to my horror, watched rioting for the first time . I asked mom"What did they do?" and she said something like, "probably nothing... they just aren't liked". I said to her"Why don't they move? There's lots of room around here." Well they did move and if I go to any big city, they don't look happy to see me, even when I tried to be friendly. What did I do? Probably nothing...I'm just not liked.

All that to say this- There are thousands of people that think as I. One, we think. Two, due to that process we can make choices based on facts, devoid of the emotional knee jerk reaction that encumbers those who remain enslaved in their pitiful cycle of pointless rhetoric. Three, if good is what you wish for then start doing good things.

I realize that as a child I thought as one and some will say I still do. Action will always speak volumes and what do the volumes of actions devoid of the moral and ethical base practiced daily in that one black man I met so many years ago, have to say . We called him Mr. Winston. I think his first name was George (RIP)...if you can.

Posted by: Forest Hunter on November 2, 2005 07:12 PM

Steele supports politics/parties/ideologies/whathaveyou out of the mainstream of Black American political thought. Should he have been pelted with oreos? No. Not because he ISNT an oreo, he definitly is, but because its counter productive and serves to only allow white pundits and their lackeys such as yourself to denigrate what are viable complaints w/ the reverse racism brush.

I love how majority politicians/pundits/etc decry Black insularity as if its just SO prevalent and so pervasive, when at every turn, the Black community is in fact confronted w/ turncoats such as Steele, Dr. Rice, Judge Thomas, etc who wouldnt have their vaunted positions without the very policies they seek to change. The cardinal sin in Black America is forgetting where you come from. Steele has. Thomas has. Dr. Rice...maybe less so.

Posted by: Binlahab on November 2, 2005 11:32 PM

I just can't fathom how you can demand that a community think in lockstep simply based on their skin color. I have much higher hopes for the future of race relations.

Posted by: geoff on November 3, 2005 12:15 AM

I can't believe that nobody mentioned the Sneetches until now.

Posted by: Chris on November 3, 2005 07:00 AM

Binlahab,

First off, you exemplify exactly the kind of mindset that is the "new" (read: Marxist/Adornoean) racism. In your world, one is not black or white, one acts black or white. The logical fact unknown to you, because you've been steeped in illogical Marxist/Gramscian/Ardonoean propaganda for the majority of your formative years, is that attributing particular actions as belonging to particular races is inherently racist.

Secondly, fuck right off, racist.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim on November 3, 2005 09:01 AM

Oops, that should read "Marxist/Gramscian/Adornoean." Need more coffee. Right after Bihabalabablah fucks right off.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim on November 3, 2005 09:02 AM

You think Binlahab is for real, Sue? Scary. I assumed it was cheap provocation.

Considering this is a land famous for people who don't care where they came from but are passionately interested in where they're going, it's hard to imagine someone seriously trying to make the case that it doesn't matter where you end up, as long as you remember where you came from. It's an attitude with "LOSER" embroidered on it in lime green thread.

Posted by: S. Weasel on November 3, 2005 09:14 AM

Sorry S. Weasel, this kind of crap gets me wound up. If nothing else, my response was cathartic.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim on November 3, 2005 09:56 AM

Oh, not complaining! It was a real question. I figured with a name like "Binlahab" he was more likely provocateur than honest broker. I wondered if he thought an uppity message from someone purporting to be black would cause us to break out in...I dunno...wild mockery in a minstrel-show dialect or something.

Me, I'm all for engaging trolls. It's just more effective when you know which ones mean what they say, and which are all sockpuppet and posturing.

Posted by: S. Weasel on November 3, 2005 10:05 AM

This has to be the best Ace post I have ever read.

Posted by: doolz on November 3, 2005 12:32 PM

You really told the truth in this article. I am a white woman who was once married to a black man, I have two mixed grandchildren & my son is going to marry a girl from Kenya next spring. I have gone from admiring to total disgust for the actions & attitudes of blacks I know. You are right, they can't be reasoned with. It's almost diabolical. I did enjoy your words.

Posted by: Connie on November 3, 2005 03:26 PM

I think that classism is much more pervasive than racism. What's most interesting is to bring topics of classism into a conversation with a conservative. The immediate accusation is "your inciting class warfare". Maybe, maybe not but there is a truth that as the rich get more and the poor get less it will become more evident. What's unbelevable is the puritanical notion that somehow poor people must've done something to be poor. So I long for the day when we can have an honest conversation about class.

Posted by: Michael on November 3, 2005 03:45 PM

No, Michael, you don't have to have done something to be poor. But you have to have done something to stay poor. Depending, of course, on how you define poor. In this country, you can provide yourself with food, clothing, shelter, transportation and a few amenities on minimum wage. And there are plenty of minimum wage-style jobs that don't stay that way.

There has to be something pretty significantly wrong with you if you can't hack a burger gig.

Posted by: S. Weasel on November 3, 2005 04:33 PM

Wow Ace. This post is so not like your usual faire. I come here for the edgy, tounge-in-cheek humor.

This post is your best ever. It is the only one that I was ever compelled to read twice. It is thoughtful, in-depth, surprisingly serious, and most importantly, spot-on on every point!

Keep your great sense of humor, but more of this kind of stuff, please. Thanks!

Posted by: Doug Purdie on November 3, 2005 06:07 PM

What's unbelevable is the puritanical notion that somehow poor people must've done something to be poor.

I may be kidding myself, but it seems to me that the poor were not looked down upon by the middle class until after the War on Poverty began. Prior to that we had memes like: 'poor but honest,' 'poor but hardworking,' 'just needs a hand up,' 'down on their luck,' etc. Now we have middle class resentment towards the semi-permanent welfare class (whose statistics are ballooned by immigration)

Posted by: geoff on November 3, 2005 06:18 PM

Sue Dohnim-

Its interesting that you can tell me what I have or have not been doing for my formative years, when you know nothing about me. I have been lead to believe from Fox & O'Reilly and the like that is what you call being a smear merchant. Are you in fact a smear merchant, Sue?

The bottom line in this country is that ever racial/identity/minority group has used their collective force to increase their collective economic/political power. A chinese person banks at a chinese bank, lives among Chinese people, speaks Cantonese/Mandarin and in general attempts to retain as much of his original culture as possible in the States. Yet when Black people attempt to do the same, we're accused of being reverse racists. How so? Do you have an answer for that, Sue? How is my initial response 'racist' to you? Or where is your "fuck right off, racist!" response to Connie or S. Weasal or anyone of the above?

Try to respond to any of the points I brought up in the previous reply, if you can. Or you could continue to name call, if you'd like.

I also find it amusing that people in this are assuming I'm a provocateur or some troll simply because of a log in name.

Sorry it took me so long to come back, but I'll be checking in regularly from now on.

Thanks!
Binlahab

Posted by: Binlahab on November 25, 2005 11:52 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.
Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win

Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.
You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!
In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.
In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.
Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
Recent Comments
Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere [/i] [/b] [/s]: "Nood ONT ..."

mindful webworker - deliver the letter the sooner the better: "So soon the moon he did croon ..."

runner: "@344 the full size one??! ..."

Berserker-Dragonheads Division: "Who built the moon. ..."

whig: "Might want to hold off on Anthropic, ===== Acti ..."

Tonypete: "Good evening good people. ..."

Anna Puma: "Okay, I have had the Horde on tenterhooks for seve ..."

Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere [/i] [/b] [/s]: "Almost nood time. ..."

Dr. Varno: "'White Otter' is actually a 'brand' of black marke ..."

runner: "I think he is relying on something in the NYT.... ..."

Anna Puma: "These people leak like sieves just for likes. B ..."

Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere [/i] [/b] [/s]: "[i]Stateless, I've said this before but I'll repea ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives