Facts you didn’t know about Lord of the Rings and J. R. R. Tolkien:

1) Tolkien fought in WWII but only enlisted because his family pressured him. In fact, he applied for a program that allowed him to complete his degree. He only made it out of the war alive because he contracted Trench Fever, which is a disease that is carried by lice. It isn’t serious, just pretty unpleasant and was pretty common during WWI. He was deemed “unfit for general services.”

2) Tolkien was friend with C. S. Lewis (he wrote Chronicles of Narnia if anyone has been under a rock for the last few decades.

3) The Special Editions of all three of the movies are 158 minutes longer than the Theatrical releases.

4) WHAT EVERYONE COMPLAINS ABOUT. Tolkien did not have the eagles fly the crew to Mount Doom because he did not want to give the impression that they were “Middle-Earth taxis.” They are their own race. Also, he found them one-dimensional and did not like them.

5) The first Portuguese version of The Hobbit was changed into O Gnomo (the Gnome).

6) Christopher Lee (Saruman) is the only actor in the Lord of the Rings films to have met Tolkien. In fact, Tolkein’s dying wish was to have Lee play Gandalf if there was ever a Lord of the Rings film. Adding to his badassory, Lee formed a metal band, holds the Guinness Book world record for being the tallest leading actor in Hollywood (6 foot 5), and he was related to Emperor Charlemagne.

7) When Tolkein’s son Michael went into the army, he had to fill in paper work. Under his father’s profession, he wrote ‘Wizard.’

8) In the 1960s the Beatles approached Stanley Kubrick with an idea: they wanted to make a live action version of the Lord of the Rings.  It would have featured John Lennon as Gollum, Ringo Starr as Sam, George Harrison as Gandalf, and Paul McCartney as Frodo. But Kubrick wasn't interested.

9) Sean Connery turned down the role of Gandalf because he didn't understand the story.

10) Tolkien would often start lectures off in an energetic way. Sometimes he would put on full chain mail armor or come in reciting the first lines from Beowulf at the top of his lungs.

11) Tolkien did not see Frodo as the hero of The Lord of the Rings he said that the true hero was Sam. From that perspective, it would change the opinion of any first time reader.

4 of 5

The Grimm's Fairy Tales for Dummies

So, I am a nerd (as most of you are aware) and I wanted to give a small crash course on the history of the Brother's Grimm, the fairy tales and why they felt the need to compile all these stories into a book.

First of, some of these fun stories were published by a man named Charles Perralt (such as "Little Red Cap" "Cinderella" and "Puss in Boots") in 1697. These stories were meant to be read by much higher-class folks in those days. So the Brothers Grimm decided that they wanted to re-explore some of these tales and write them for the everyday folk.  So they compiled a few of these stories along with many others and published them in a volume with 86 stories (mind you I'm skipping to the gems here) in 1812. Then a few years later in 1815, a second volume was published that contained 70. The fist editions were highly criticized because the public saw the stories as too sexual, violent or just overall, not child friendly. So many changes were made over the years. For example, Rapunzel asking the enchantress why her dress was too tight. And changing the mother from Hansel and Gretel and Snow White into a stepmother. So all sexual references were taken out, and the violent punishments for villains was amped up.

What most people do not understand is that these stories were not necessarily meant for children.  As a matter of fact, many of these stories were violet as shit (if anyone is interested, look up “The Maid With No Hands” or “Child of Mary”). These stories were ones that had been passed down by word of mouth by the common people.  So imagine two women milking cows and while doing so, trading stories about a singing bone or 13 Little Men in the Woods.

As a side note: a few years later there was a smaller edition of only 50 stories intended for children.

3 of 5 

Merlin (as I know him)

Okay, so we were talking in class about what Merlin means to us. Now,because I know all of you (probably) didn't have a father like mine who showed her movies like the original animated "Hobbit" and "The Tenth Kingdom" as a small child; you guys probably never saw this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW7lYb9gRf4

(I would like to apologize for the quality of the video, it has been on youtube for six years now, so yes, it is old).

Anyways, this movie portrays Merlin's entire life. So his birth, growing up years, adulthood and old age. For the time it was made (1998-granted not THAT long ago, but that IS for those of you who just watched "Lord of the Rings" or "Pacific Rim") the effects are pretty cool. Or maybe this film just resonates with me because I was introduced to it at a young age. Either way, Merlin (Sam Neill-Doctor Grant from Jurassic Park) is NOT a crotchety old man in this one and he is NOT insane or a tree-loving hippie who runs into the woods when shit gets too heavy. Also it has some well known medieval tales thrown in there like Author and Guinevere, and  Queen Mab who is referenced in Shakespeare. So, maybe give it a watch, it won't kill you (it is only 2 minutes long and it has a great cast).

 Err... 1 out of 5

Harry Potter

I was reading Sam’s last post on here and it inspired me.  I really love Harry Potter.  But the fun story about this love, is that I have never read the first book.  That’s right, you read that correctly. I never read the first book. The reasoning was, that my mother, coming from a VERY Baptist family she didn’t let me read them.  She said that they were sacrilegious and that she didn’t want me getting any ideas.  So I didn’t read them.  Until one day, I was in third grade (I think) my father, who had been reading the books, called me over.  He asked me if I was interested in reading the books. I said yes, but mom wouldn’t let me.  So from then onward, my dad read me the books when my mom wasn’t home.  The way he saw it was I wasn’t doing anything my mom didn’t want me to.  And from then on, I’ve loved the books.  But to this day, I have not read the very first book.  Everyone always feels the need to give me a bizarre look whenever I say that. But at the end of this class, I will have read them all.  And I’m very excited to do so. 

Saints Killed in Shitty Ways... And Ones That Got Off Easy

Okay, so I brought up a question today in class that's been bothering the hell out of me (no pun intended) and. I want to bring up some of the information I was able to find online. But for anyone who forgot or wasn't there my question was: what makes these saints that were killed for any number of reasons, so bad, while others were so good? So for the interest of time, I will stick to female saints but mind you, there are male saint who were put to death. I want to stick to females because the idea of witchcraft seems to be more prevalent among females. So I'm going to include the name, time period, area, a smidge of background knowledge, and the "crime" that was committed that was worthy of death.

Saint Cecillia - Patron saint of musicians
Rome, Italy - 2nd or 3rd century
This one is kinda gruesome so, consider yourself warned. But she was married to a pagan named Valerianus. She told him that there was an angel that kept watch over her virtue. Valerianus wanted to see this angel so she told him to get baptized. After he does this the same angel gives Cecilia and Valerianus both crowns (permitting them to get down, get down, tonight baby). After taking her purity Valerianus and his brother turn into jerks and turn Cecilia in for being Christian. So she gets locked in a bathroom, burned alive, and then her head is cut off. Three times.

Saint Agnes - Patron saint of 
Rome, Italy - 292 to 304 A.D.
So this chick is one of my favorites. She was apparently really beautiful and was sought after by this dude in charge. She refused to marry him so he wanted to put her to death. But it was frowned upon to kill virgins at this time (don't ask me why) so he sent her to a brothel. But an angel kept an eye out for her and prevented this from happening. So instead they decided to burn her at the stake. She was stabbed in the throat when this didn't work.

Saint Dymphna - Patron saint of those suffering mental disorders
Was in Ireland but fled to Belgium -  7th century A.D.
Her mother died and her father went insane with grief. Her father wanted to marry her, but she ran away, so he followed her to Belgium. She refused him again so he cut her head off.

Saint Joan of Arc - Patron saint of France and being a bad ass
France - 1400s 
She started seeing visions as a teenager and went to the King of France. She told him to give her command of an army and she would get the British out of Orleans. Long story short, she did. A few years later she got into a dispute with the same king and he burned her at the stake for witchcraft. 

My question: why are these woman so different from Catherine of Siena and Hildegard? Catherine of Siena was around about the same time as Joan. It really confuses me because I don't know what the main difference is. Hildegard was never canonized either. Doesn't this strike anyone as odd? As Olivia pointed out, there was a great deal about sex and the female orgasm in Hildegard's writings. Why was this okay while a female refusing a man's advances was not? 

One thing worth pointing out is the idea that women refusing men is a reason for being killed then sainted. Whereas witches are believed to have a great deal of sex and dance in the woods. It can't be this idea of feminine purity. There's a lot that doesn't exactly match up here.

What is the point? And what does this have to do with our class?
Does this not speak volumes about the conflicts of the time? So, to restate the question that Professor MB asked: why are some women so damn special? (I'm condensing a few things here, I know). My theory is that woman that did not give back to society in an appropriately feminine way in a combination with popularity with the people lead to bad things. Another point worth mentioning is the idea that family status was crucial.

Any thoughts guys?

Thomas Aquinasty reading

Alright, so here's the thing, to be completely honest, I realize just how difficult the reading by Thomas Aquinas (Thomas Aqui-Nasty) was, so I'm going to do the guys in my group for tomorrow a bit of a favor and arrange the section we were assigned into some more simplistic points. So guys, that's the reading of page 90-94. Here goes...

First off when Aquinas says "...the work of magicians result not only from the influence of heavenly bodies" (90) he means that magic is, essentially what you make it to be. Meaning, the witness who believes that they are seeing a process that they wish to believe is magic, they are giving this process power. Entertaining the idea that what you. Are seeing is magic.

"Now these conversations and apparitions are addressed to those who have free use of their external senses. Therefore these apparitions and speeches cannot be imaginary" (91). This means (and the paragraph before this one) that the reason that magic has it's power, is because observers believe it to be magic.

"...no imaginary forms can lead a person to intellectual knowledge beyond the nature or acquiring faculty of his intellect..." (91). This chunk is my favorite. Really what he means is humans acquire knowledge through the use of knowledge and facts. Without these facts, one cannot learn something. So it is impossible for someone to acquire knowledge by shear chance or "just cuz". Wow. That was a long run around for something so basic, right?

"...movement of its very nature is the result of having a soul: since it is proper to animate things to move themselves. Therefore it is impossible for an inanimate being to be moved by itself, through the power of a heavenly body" (91). Because things do not have a soul, they cannot move on their own. Therefore, phenomenons such as levitation are impossible. Also, things such as idols, that were built by man cannot more or grant "wishes" these idols or shrines were only created because the need for something to worship or prey to was present (92).

""...in the practice of their art they make use of certain significative words in order to produce certain definite effects...have no power except as derived from some intellect; either of the speaker, or of the person to whom they are spoken" (93). The only reason incantations have power is because the person reciting or the person listening believes them to have significance. No words have power. Events are the only things that can lead to a skill. Without these events, there can be no skill.

Later down in 93 to the top of 94, it Aquinas goes on further to say that is magic is generated by the power of thought (a power all men have), then why can't every Tom, Dick and Harry be able to make things happen with will power? Why can't everyone perform magic? Lack of actions cannot be taught to others, so in reality, they cannot be replicated. Ergo, magic is complete bullshit. The top of 93 states (the same thing, but phrased differently) that we cannot learn from things we cannot comprehend.

The idea that praying to an idol because you need a certain outcome will grant only what you believe it to. So when you say 'Heres a lamb because I want to be smarter." That will work based on the idea that you want the outcome of you being smarter (94).

In all reality, this reading may seem frightening but