12
Why????????????????
13 Jul, 2011
(edited)
2011-7-13 12:00:06 PM UTC
2011-7-13 12:00:06 PM UTC
The mayor of Gdansk is supporting a campaign to name a new viaduct in honour of British fantasy writer J.R.R Tolkien.
The design has already been dubbed “The Eye of Sauron” by members of the public, alluding to the arch villain in The Lord of the Rings saga.
Now the Tolkien tag appears to have official backing. “The idea strikes me as being very interesting,” wrote mayor Pawel Adamowicz on his blog yesterday.
“Tolkien is a figure who rather does not provoke controversy,” he affirmed.
“The worlds conjured by J.R.R Tolkien certainly do fire the imagination, which has meant that he has become one of the most widely read writers of the twentieth century, and immensely popularly in Poland,” he added.
Adamowicz was initially approached about the matter by Lukasz Golowanow, who works for popular regional web portal mmtrojmiasto.pl. The mayor encouraged the latter to start a Facebook page so as to gauge how much support there is for the concept.
With the Facebook page now active, over 2000 users have already declared their allegiance to the Tolkien cause, bringing a great deal of interest to the design, which was drawn up by Tadeusz Stefanowski from Transprojekt Gdansk Office.
Golowanow notes that the final decision rests with the Committee for Culture and Promotion of the Gdansk City Council, but he says that almost all of the members that he has contacted thus far are enthusiastic about the idea.
Whether or not the proposed viaduct will prove to be a portal to parallel world inhabited by hobbits and dwarves remains to be seen, a factor which could prove interesting for motorists who navigate the overpass.
No idea where this came from?
The design has already been dubbed “The Eye of Sauron” by members of the public, alluding to the arch villain in The Lord of the Rings saga.
Now the Tolkien tag appears to have official backing. “The idea strikes me as being very interesting,” wrote mayor Pawel Adamowicz on his blog yesterday.
“Tolkien is a figure who rather does not provoke controversy,” he affirmed.
“The worlds conjured by J.R.R Tolkien certainly do fire the imagination, which has meant that he has become one of the most widely read writers of the twentieth century, and immensely popularly in Poland,” he added.
Adamowicz was initially approached about the matter by Lukasz Golowanow, who works for popular regional web portal mmtrojmiasto.pl. The mayor encouraged the latter to start a Facebook page so as to gauge how much support there is for the concept.
With the Facebook page now active, over 2000 users have already declared their allegiance to the Tolkien cause, bringing a great deal of interest to the design, which was drawn up by Tadeusz Stefanowski from Transprojekt Gdansk Office.
Golowanow notes that the final decision rests with the Committee for Culture and Promotion of the Gdansk City Council, but he says that almost all of the members that he has contacted thus far are enthusiastic about the idea.
Whether or not the proposed viaduct will prove to be a portal to parallel world inhabited by hobbits and dwarves remains to be seen, a factor which could prove interesting for motorists who navigate the overpass.
No idea where this came from?
I am sure he would not have approved at all of this, in fact the only thing that I can think of that Tolkien would have liked to have named after him is a forest. 
Judging by the numerous question marks after "Why" in Trotter's opening post, it would appear to matter to the aforementioned Trotter...
BH
BH
Trotter wrote:
Yes it does
Anyone of course has the right to be offended by something or not approve of something. My point was about the human tendency to make presumptions regarding what the dead might think (if they weren't dead). IMHO, this process involves attributing our own opinions to the dead in order to bolster the validity of said opinions. Surely it is enough to say "*I* do not approve", rather than "Tolkien would not have approved" and let that opinion stand on its own merit.
In the case of this bridge, given the utter and total crap that his been (willingly) licensed in Tolkien's name, I hardly think a bridge (which is presumably a useful thing to those who will cross it) is worth getting too worried about. I imagine the estate would weigh in and kill their party anyway.
Just my two-cents (or pennies) - it isn't my intent to offend any of the living
Stu
>My point was about the human tendency to make presumptions regarding what the dead might think (if they weren't dead). IMHO, this process involves attributing our own opinions to the dead in order to bolster the validity of said opinions. Surely it is enough to say "*I* do not approve", rather than "Tolkien would not have approved" and let that opinion stand on its own merit.<
I totally agree - I find a lot of folk say things like 'Tolkien would have _loved_ the movies; this sentiment is usually expressed by movies fans who haven't read LotR, let alone anything about the man.
Lately, I find myself more and more wanting to say on certain websites that I disapprove of one thing or another (eg the use of Tolkien's letters without permission), but I've always held back because I expect I'd get back a gale of protest along the lines of 'Who are You, to 'disapprove' of something which I hold dear'?
Time was when I'd relish defending my position, but lately I find the attitudes on many websites to be so intimidating - with the word 'purist' being bandied about with venom, as if a purist were against God, apple pie and PJ) - that usually, I can't be bothered with the aggravation.
Still, that's straying from the point. Sorry. And it goes without saying that I find none of these nrgative attitudes here on this site.
I totally agree - I find a lot of folk say things like 'Tolkien would have _loved_ the movies; this sentiment is usually expressed by movies fans who haven't read LotR, let alone anything about the man.
Lately, I find myself more and more wanting to say on certain websites that I disapprove of one thing or another (eg the use of Tolkien's letters without permission), but I've always held back because I expect I'd get back a gale of protest along the lines of 'Who are You, to 'disapprove' of something which I hold dear'?
Time was when I'd relish defending my position, but lately I find the attitudes on many websites to be so intimidating - with the word 'purist' being bandied about with venom, as if a purist were against God, apple pie and PJ) - that usually, I can't be bothered with the aggravation.
Still, that's straying from the point. Sorry. And it goes without saying that I find none of these nrgative attitudes here on this site.
12
3992
1737906