BTW, it’s worth recalling what the NSA thought would be a fine logo to put on one of their satellites:
” So presumably the artist is suggesting the US is turning into Mordor?”
Yes, but not because of the way the NSA is being run, but because of the way the EPA is being run.
In the movies, it was the all-seeing Eye of Sauron, which explains why the NSA would want one.
“In the movies…”
Yes, in the books it was different. Sauron had many spies, but was not all-seeing. The ability to see things far away was limited to the palantiri (which Sauron had one of, because it was captured in the fall of, off the top of my head, Osgiliath? I think).
“Yes, in the books it was different. Sauron had many spies, but was not all-seeing. The ability to see things far away was limited to the palantiri (which Sauron had one of, because it was captured in the fall of, off the top of my head, Osgiliath? I think).”
I don’t think it was any/significantly different in the movies.
It’s still the eye of Sauron and it’s evil.
“I don’t think it was any/significantly different in the movies.
It’s still the eye of Sauron and it’s evil.”
In the sense that in the books, there is no “eye of Sauron”, and in the movies, there is, you’re right. No significant difference. just that little trivial one.
Being ignorant of the LOTR books/movies, this looks a little Arlo to me. Forgive me.
Do an image search on “eye of sauron tower” This should give you a good idea of the imagery from the movies (although a lot of the hits in my results were of merch rather than images directly from the movie, so YMMV.)
“Do an image search on “eye of sauron tower””
Done. However, all the eyes I saw were rather horizontally positioned rather than the vertical rendition in the drawing above. Whether that was intended by the artist or in any possible way connected to the ‘joke’, I now think I’m justified in having Arlo come to mind.
“In the sense that in the books, there is no “eye of Sauron”, and in the movies, there is, you’re right. No significant difference. just that little trivial one.”
Wait… yes there was, wasn’t there. Sauron was a giant eye,wasn’t he? Now maybe he was never referred to in the books (Hah! who’s being canonical *now*?) as “the Eye of Sauron” but I don’t think he was in the movies either. A lot of things get presumed into knowledge such as “eye of sauron” or “all seeing” that are simply not there.
One of the one’s I’m rather adamant about is the common misconception that the Wicked Witch of the East and West were sisters. Even folks who will insist the shoes were Silver and yap on about the dainty China Country will assume the witches were related.
“Wait… yes there was, wasn’t there. Sauron was a giant eye,wasn’t he?”
“One of the one’s I’m rather adamant about is the common misconception that the Wicked Witch of the East and West were sisters.”
Apparently, in Wicked, they were. I’ve read the first of the Baum novels, but only the first (and there so many, and with authorized successors). I don’t recall much discussion of the WWotE, because she’s already dead when we meet her.
To geek out for a moment: Sauron was believed to have the Ithil stone, captured when Minas Ithil was captured and changed into Minas Morgul. The Osgilith stone was the controlling stone for the others and so Sauron would have had more control if he had it – for example he probably could have prevented Aragorn from using the Isengard stone. /geek
woozy: How do you know they weren’t related? Are books by Roger S. Baum canonical?
Wicked got it from the movie, just like everyone else did. The wicked witch of the East has a bit of a story in that she was hired to break off the tin woodman’s marriage.
The Wicked witch of the west was only in one chapter and died 5/8th s of the way through the book. She wasn’t the villain.
“Stan: Virtually every image I see has it oriented the same way as in the comic”
Ahhh, ok. The pupil is oriented the same in those images, but it’s surrounded by a very round eye which tapers off at either side horizontally. I see what you’re saying, but if you showed me that ‘eye’ above on it’s own, my mind would not jump to ‘eye’. Maybe it’s just me.
Roger S. Baum. Definitely not canonical.
Stan: You’re probably one of those sickos who reads all kinds of things into Georgia O’ Keeffe paintings, aren’t you? ;)
Wait a minute! I found a collection of Georgia O’Keeffe paintings tucked away under my son’s mattress last month! He told me he was a keen botanist! Yea, right! Now I get it! No more trips to the museum for that young man, I can tell you. Thanks, WW!
The Eye of Sauron does appear in the books, though not like in the movies or this comic. It’s his symbol on the banners of his armies. Just before the breaking of the Fellowship, when Frodo goes off by himself to figure out what to do, he puts on the ring and he becomes aware of Sauron’s gaze. Later when Frodo and Sam are making their way through Mordor, the clouds around Barad-Dur part and Frodo gets a glimpse of the Eye, which is looking north towards the army marching on the Black Gate. Peter Jackson’s depiction is not entirely out of sync with the books, though maybe a bit more literal than Tolkien intended.
There’s also the sequence with Galadriel’s Mirror.
“the clouds around Barad-Dur part and Frodo gets a glimpse of the Eye, which is looking north towards the army marching on the Black Gate.”
I knew I wasn’t misremembering.
Well, the image is very clearly drawn from the movie of LOTR, so the movie rules apply. Discussion of the book in this context is purely academic.
“Well, the image is very clearly drawn from the movie of LOTR, so the movie rules apply.”
The image is very clearly drawn in a comic, so comic rules apply.
If the (movie) Wicked Witch of the West is not related to the Wicked Witch of the East, what right does she have to claim inheritance of the Ruby Slippers? The will hasn’t even been probated.
Well, the movie witches were sisters so the question is moot. As for the book she only wanted to take the silver shoes when dorothy sowed up on her doorstep with them. She never claimed any right to them. She was scared of them when she first saw them but when she saw Dorothy didn’t know what they were she decided to steal them.
On the other hand, it could be argued that Dorothy is at least guilty of manslaughter, as well as reckless driving. There is a longstanding legal principle that criminals should not profit from their crime, so even if the authorities (Glinda, presumably) decided not to prosecute, the magic slippers should not have been given to Dorothy.
Sure, but who wants to be the one who takes them away from her?
“You want these slippers, Glinda? Bring it on, girl: I’ve already killed two witches today.”
It seems difficult to argue that Dorothy is guilty of manslaughter, or reckless driving, since she had no ability to steer the house.
“It seems difficult to argue that Dorothy is guilty of manslaughter”
There’s strict liability for property owners and hazards. For example, a tree gets struck by lightning, and a big branch falls off the tree and kills a person walking by on the sidewalk.
Dorothy might not own the house in Kansas, but in Oz…
You’re misapplying the extent of property liability, misusing a civil concept in a criminal issue, and even then only making your case “work” by postulating some difference in Oz-ian law, in which case, eh, why not just assume whatever your want to make the case work?
What, now?
James, in the case of a tree branch, it could be argued that this was a foreseeable danger. It would be hard to argue that Uncle Henry could have known that his house might become a lethal weapon.
“It would be hard to argue that Uncle Henry could have known that his house might become a lethal weapon.”
Hard to argue that an object in Tornado Alley might be picked up by a Tornado, carried through the air, and injure someone? Did you see “Twister”?
I meant only to get a laugh with my “reckless driving” comment, but a discussion on the liability implications of runaway houses is good too… :-)
Brian, yeah, when I wrote my comment I knew I was taking too seriously a throwaway joke, but then I figured – eh, that’s what this blog is all about. :)
Comics I Don't Understand 
The war/spying budget this year went to building the Eye of Sauron.
That’s presumably the Eye of Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. http://comiccrossroads.wikia.com/wiki/File:Eye_of_Sauron.jpg So presumably the artist is suggesting the US is turning into Mordor?
BTW, it’s worth recalling what the NSA thought would be a fine logo to put on one of their satellites:
” So presumably the artist is suggesting the US is turning into Mordor?”
Yes, but not because of the way the NSA is being run, but because of the way the EPA is being run.
In the movies, it was the all-seeing Eye of Sauron, which explains why the NSA would want one.
“In the movies…”
Yes, in the books it was different. Sauron had many spies, but was not all-seeing. The ability to see things far away was limited to the palantiri (which Sauron had one of, because it was captured in the fall of, off the top of my head, Osgiliath? I think).
“Yes, in the books it was different. Sauron had many spies, but was not all-seeing. The ability to see things far away was limited to the palantiri (which Sauron had one of, because it was captured in the fall of, off the top of my head, Osgiliath? I think).”
I don’t think it was any/significantly different in the movies.
It’s still the eye of Sauron and it’s evil.
“I don’t think it was any/significantly different in the movies.
It’s still the eye of Sauron and it’s evil.”
In the sense that in the books, there is no “eye of Sauron”, and in the movies, there is, you’re right. No significant difference. just that little trivial one.
Being ignorant of the LOTR books/movies, this looks a little Arlo to me. Forgive me.
Do an image search on “eye of sauron tower” This should give you a good idea of the imagery from the movies (although a lot of the hits in my results were of merch rather than images directly from the movie, so YMMV.)
“Do an image search on “eye of sauron tower””
Done. However, all the eyes I saw were rather horizontally positioned rather than the vertical rendition in the drawing above. Whether that was intended by the artist or in any possible way connected to the ‘joke’, I now think I’m justified in having Arlo come to mind.
“In the sense that in the books, there is no “eye of Sauron”, and in the movies, there is, you’re right. No significant difference. just that little trivial one.”
Wait… yes there was, wasn’t there. Sauron was a giant eye,wasn’t he? Now maybe he was never referred to in the books (Hah! who’s being canonical *now*?) as “the Eye of Sauron” but I don’t think he was in the movies either. A lot of things get presumed into knowledge such as “eye of sauron” or “all seeing” that are simply not there.
One of the one’s I’m rather adamant about is the common misconception that the Wicked Witch of the East and West were sisters. Even folks who will insist the shoes were Silver and yap on about the dainty China Country will assume the witches were related.
“Wait… yes there was, wasn’t there. Sauron was a giant eye,wasn’t he?”
No.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/27657/was-the-eye-of-sauron-saurons-actual-physical-form
“One of the one’s I’m rather adamant about is the common misconception that the Wicked Witch of the East and West were sisters.”
Apparently, in Wicked, they were. I’ve read the first of the Baum novels, but only the first (and there so many, and with authorized successors). I don’t recall much discussion of the WWotE, because she’s already dead when we meet her.
To geek out for a moment: Sauron was believed to have the Ithil stone, captured when Minas Ithil was captured and changed into Minas Morgul. The Osgilith stone was the controlling stone for the others and so Sauron would have had more control if he had it – for example he probably could have prevented Aragorn from using the Isengard stone. /geek
Stan: Virtually every image I see has it oriented the same way as in the comic: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=eye+of+sauron&FORM=HDRSC2
woozy: How do you know they weren’t related? Are books by Roger S. Baum canonical?
Wicked got it from the movie, just like everyone else did. The wicked witch of the East has a bit of a story in that she was hired to break off the tin woodman’s marriage.
The Wicked witch of the west was only in one chapter and died 5/8th s of the way through the book. She wasn’t the villain.
“Stan: Virtually every image I see has it oriented the same way as in the comic”
Ahhh, ok. The pupil is oriented the same in those images, but it’s surrounded by a very round eye which tapers off at either side horizontally. I see what you’re saying, but if you showed me that ‘eye’ above on it’s own, my mind would not jump to ‘eye’. Maybe it’s just me.
Roger S. Baum. Definitely not canonical.
Stan: You’re probably one of those sickos who reads all kinds of things into Georgia O’ Keeffe paintings, aren’t you? ;)
Wait a minute! I found a collection of Georgia O’Keeffe paintings tucked away under my son’s mattress last month! He told me he was a keen botanist! Yea, right! Now I get it! No more trips to the museum for that young man, I can tell you. Thanks, WW!
The Eye of Sauron does appear in the books, though not like in the movies or this comic. It’s his symbol on the banners of his armies. Just before the breaking of the Fellowship, when Frodo goes off by himself to figure out what to do, he puts on the ring and he becomes aware of Sauron’s gaze. Later when Frodo and Sam are making their way through Mordor, the clouds around Barad-Dur part and Frodo gets a glimpse of the Eye, which is looking north towards the army marching on the Black Gate. Peter Jackson’s depiction is not entirely out of sync with the books, though maybe a bit more literal than Tolkien intended.
There’s also the sequence with Galadriel’s Mirror.
Not as far-fetched as one might think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
“the clouds around Barad-Dur part and Frodo gets a glimpse of the Eye, which is looking north towards the army marching on the Black Gate.”
I knew I wasn’t misremembering.
Well, the image is very clearly drawn from the movie of LOTR, so the movie rules apply. Discussion of the book in this context is purely academic.
“Well, the image is very clearly drawn from the movie of LOTR, so the movie rules apply.”
The image is very clearly drawn in a comic, so comic rules apply.
If the (movie) Wicked Witch of the West is not related to the Wicked Witch of the East, what right does she have to claim inheritance of the Ruby Slippers? The will hasn’t even been probated.
Well, the movie witches were sisters so the question is moot. As for the book she only wanted to take the silver shoes when dorothy sowed up on her doorstep with them. She never claimed any right to them. She was scared of them when she first saw them but when she saw Dorothy didn’t know what they were she decided to steal them.
On the other hand, it could be argued that Dorothy is at least guilty of manslaughter, as well as reckless driving. There is a longstanding legal principle that criminals should not profit from their crime, so even if the authorities (Glinda, presumably) decided not to prosecute, the magic slippers should not have been given to Dorothy.
Sure, but who wants to be the one who takes them away from her?
“You want these slippers, Glinda? Bring it on, girl: I’ve already killed two witches today.”
It seems difficult to argue that Dorothy is guilty of manslaughter, or reckless driving, since she had no ability to steer the house.
“It seems difficult to argue that Dorothy is guilty of manslaughter”
There’s strict liability for property owners and hazards. For example, a tree gets struck by lightning, and a big branch falls off the tree and kills a person walking by on the sidewalk.
Dorothy might not own the house in Kansas, but in Oz…
You’re misapplying the extent of property liability, misusing a civil concept in a criminal issue, and even then only making your case “work” by postulating some difference in Oz-ian law, in which case, eh, why not just assume whatever your want to make the case work?
What, now?
James, in the case of a tree branch, it could be argued that this was a foreseeable danger. It would be hard to argue that Uncle Henry could have known that his house might become a lethal weapon.
“It would be hard to argue that Uncle Henry could have known that his house might become a lethal weapon.”
Hard to argue that an object in Tornado Alley might be picked up by a Tornado, carried through the air, and injure someone? Did you see “Twister”?
I meant only to get a laugh with my “reckless driving” comment, but a discussion on the liability implications of runaway houses is good too… :-)
Brian, yeah, when I wrote my comment I knew I was taking too seriously a throwaway joke, but then I figured – eh, that’s what this blog is all about. :)