Feedback and Suggestion Box

[The Barrow-Wight]

Agreed. I'm not suggesting we never wander beyond the boundary of the pages of the LotR. Well-annotated and pertinence references to ther sources can be quite interesting, but only if they don't pull us away from the chapter at hand.

[The Saucepan Man]

On another point, I'm probably being terribly "anoraky" here, but would it be possible to amend the titles of the Foreword and Prologue threads to include something like "A." before the heading? Otherwise they appear below the chapter threads when organised alphabetically by thread title.

[Mister Underhill]

We've been careful to name the threads to make sure they sort properly. Sort by thread title, ascending, and everything should be hunky-dory.

[The Saucepan Man]

Oops! I was sorting by "thread starter". Never noticed that little double dash in there. Just ignore me!

[Bêthberry]

I share the same hesitations which BW and Mr. Underhill have about letting HoME material intrude too greatly into the Chapter by Chapter discussion. There are already readers who have questioned whether the discussion is for older or newer members and I think too great a reference to HoME would discourage the newer members who likely have read neither HoME nor UT or quite possibly even The Silm.

It is very tempting for those of us who have had previous discussions on the various topics to assume unconsciously a knowledge of those discussion and go on from there. This I think we have to be careful of, and remember always to provide links and explanations so that the newer members feel drawn into the discussion and not excluded because it looks like an insiders' talk.

I think we are all carefully balancing between what is/was our 'first' reading experience and our later reading experiences of LOtR. Much as I am intrigued by alternate texts--and certainly have no fear of knowledge of them destroying my enjoyment of the final published version--I think the fun of this discussion is the exploration of how we all read in so many different ways. To include many versions would I think take away this focus on our unique reading experiences towards trying to create some 'authoritative interpretation.' This could possibly discourage those who don't see or follow or understand 'the party line' (said jokingly of course) and we would thereby be losing others who have much to offer.

Cheers.