Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9,10 (click to see context) from:
** And he does have a record of taking the children of his enemies to raise himself. The good news is, this was the case, the children probably had quite a happy upbringing, since Maglor was noted to be quite a good foster-father to Elrond and Elros, despite having abducted them under even worse circumstances.
to:
** And he does have a record of taking the children of his enemies to raise himself. The good news is, if this was the case, the children probably had quite a happy upbringing, since Maglor was noted to be quite a good foster-father to Elrond and Elros, despite having abducted them under even worse circumstances.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
to:
** And he does have a record of taking the children of his enemies to raise himself. The good news is, this was the case, the children probably had quite a happy upbringing, since Maglor was noted to be quite a good foster-father to Elrond and Elros, despite having abducted them under even worse circumstances.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town. The attributed this to some sort of dishonestly on their own part, and the story became a penance for their own demons.
to:
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town. The They attributed this to some sort of dishonestly dishonesty on their own part, and the story became a penance for their own demons.
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* The Pied Piper is Maglor, the last surviving son of [[Literature/TheSilmarillion Fëanor]]. Maglor was known of being the greatest musician among Noldor Elves.
to:
[[WMG: The Pied Piper is
The last surviving son of [[Literature/TheSilmarillion
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The Pied Piper is Maglor, the last surviving son of [[Literature/TheSilmarillion Fëanor]]. Maglor was known of being the greatest musician among Noldor Elves.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** The other problem being that the rat element of the story is absent for over two centuries. Making the more logical argument it was an element later storytellers added based on the older historical story. The more fanciful alternative being the true story leaked out through the folk despite the town's denial. Which ironically is an argument used also for the crusade theory with the folk tale being the alternative history to derail from the truth of this supposed failed crusade.
to:
** The other problem being that the rat element of the story is absent for over two centuries. Making the more logical argument it was an element later storytellers added based on the older historical story. The more fanciful alternative being the true story leaked out through the folk despite the town's denial. Which ironically is an argument used also for the crusade theory with the folk tale being the alternative history to derail from the truth of this supposed failed crusade. For the sake of historical skepticism we should remember though just because we can't find records of a tale isn't a complete absence confirmation. So while there's no proof at least in theory talk it's possible we may come upon previously unknown versions that could fill in the map more.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,6 (click to see context) from:
* Kind of/sort of/maybe or not. The problem is discerning the truth from the myth. The town of Hamelin was real and lost it's children. There records are based around the event the children left. However looking back the part about rats doesn't even enter the tales until much later. It's simply about the piper leading the children away. In modern times thanks to literature-minded people hammering it into us the pied piper can be seen as a metaphor for death, but a lot of that comes from this version of the story. Back then without this, and without the rats in the story at all, what in the world would be the purpose of adding a multi-color piper to the story if he did not exist? To the point they even made a stain glass window of the depiction, if the children died of plague or other disease, you would think they would have used one of the many religious manifestations for the afterlife, why would they make up a whole new symbol that without us connecting 'rats = plague' really doesn't seem like a death metaphor.
* The major thinking here is that this is a good example of basing stories on real life and people being unable to distinguish the truth anymore. We can learn a lot from the way the story is recorded, even though it seems far from the truth. A lot of the symbolism we as modern readers see it in though may only be there from our modern lenses. Back when the rat version became a wide tale, the aesop of not lying worked as well as it does now, but now we have to admit the plague part probably wasn't there in the past.
* The believing in supernatural side will also offer a counterpoint that if the story did happen the way the famous version does, the town wouldn't want that truth being revealed. After all had they have paid the piper, they'd still have their children. So it's this thinking that they lied and the only place the "real" story would survive would be in the folk where it won't be until years later it's written down and becomes the tale we are used to hearing.
* Either way this is one of history's unresolved mysteries that is really glossed over in modern times. But often it's a good way to start an argument between your literature and history professors of just how much of it is history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much).
* The major thinking here is that this is a good example of basing stories on real life and people being unable to distinguish the truth anymore. We can learn a lot from the way the story is recorded, even though it seems far from the truth. A lot of the symbolism we as modern readers see it in though may only be there from our modern lenses. Back when the rat version became a wide tale, the aesop of not lying worked as well as it does now, but now we have to admit the plague part probably wasn't there in the past.
* The believing in supernatural side will also offer a counterpoint that if the story did happen the way the famous version does, the town wouldn't want that truth being revealed. After all had they have paid the piper, they'd still have their children. So it's this thinking that they lied and the only place the "real" story would survive would be in the folk where it won't be until years later it's written down and becomes the tale we are used to hearing.
* Either way this is one of history's unresolved mysteries that is really glossed over in modern times. But often it's a good way to start an argument between your literature and history professors of just how much of it is history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much).
to:
* Kind of/sort of/maybe or not. The problem is discerning the truth from the myth. The town of Hamelin was real and lost it's children. There records are based around the event the children left. However looking back the part about rats doesn't even enter the tales until This would be a theory playing much later. It's simply about closer to the piper leading literary minded interpretation rather than the children away. In modern times thanks to literature-minded people hammering it into us historical. Namely because so much of our association with the pied piper can be seen as a metaphor for death, but a lot of that plague comes from this version of the story. Back then without this, and without the rats in the story at all, what in as it was later told, not the world would be the purpose of adding other way around. If a multi-color piper to the story if he did not exist? To the point they even made a stain glass window of the depiction, if the children died of plague or other disease, you would think had ripped through Hamelin and they would kept the record of it, why oh why out of all the things they could have used one of in the many religious manifestations for the afterlife, why memorial would they make up pick a whole new symbol that without us connecting 'rats = plague' really doesn't seem like a death metaphor.
*pied piper if he didn't represent an actual person?
** Themajor thinking here is that this is a good example of basing stories on real life and people other problem being unable to distinguish that the truth anymore. We can learn a lot from the way rat element of the story is recorded, even though absent for over two centuries. Making the more logical argument it seems far was an element later storytellers added based on the older historical story. The more fanciful alternative being the true story leaked out through the folk despite the town's denial. Which ironically is an argument used also for the crusade theory with the folk tale being the alternative history to derail from the truth. A lot truth of the symbolism we as modern readers see it in this supposed failed crusade.
* Clearly thoughmay only be there from our modern lenses. Back when the rat version became a wide tale, the aesop of not lying worked as well as it does now, but now we have to admit the plague part probably wasn't there in the past.
* The believing in supernatural side will also offer a counterpoint that if the story did happen the way the famous version does, the town wouldn't want that truth being revealed. After all had they have paid the piper, they'd still have their children. So it's this thinking that they lied and the only place the "real" story would survive would be in the folk where it won't be until years later it's written down and becomes the tale we are used to hearing.
* Either way this isPied Piper remains one of history's unresolved unsolved mysteries that is really glossed a lot of people just gloss over in modern times. But often it's as a good way to start an argument between your literature literary tale and history professors of just how much of it is that. It's also one to get a history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much).an English major to go at each other over.
*
** The
* Clearly though
* The believing in supernatural side will also offer a counterpoint that if the story did happen the way the famous version does, the town wouldn't want that truth being revealed. After all had they have paid the piper, they'd still have their children. So it's this thinking that they lied and the only place the "real" story would survive would be in the folk where it won't be until years later it's written down and becomes the tale we are used to hearing.
* Either way this is
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* Either way this is one of history's unresolved mysteries that is really glossed over in modern times. But often it's a good way to start an argument between your literature and history professors of just how much of it is history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much)
to:
* Either way this is one of history's unresolved mysteries that is really glossed over in modern times. But often it's a good way to start an argument between your literature and history professors of just how much of it is history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much)much).
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town. The attributed this to some sort of dishonestly on their own part, and the story became a penance for their own demons.
to:
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town. The attributed this to some sort of dishonestly on their own part, and the story became a penance for their own demons.demons.
* Kind of/sort of/maybe or not. The problem is discerning the truth from the myth. The town of Hamelin was real and lost it's children. There records are based around the event the children left. However looking back the part about rats doesn't even enter the tales until much later. It's simply about the piper leading the children away. In modern times thanks to literature-minded people hammering it into us the pied piper can be seen as a metaphor for death, but a lot of that comes from this version of the story. Back then without this, and without the rats in the story at all, what in the world would be the purpose of adding a multi-color piper to the story if he did not exist? To the point they even made a stain glass window of the depiction, if the children died of plague or other disease, you would think they would have used one of the many religious manifestations for the afterlife, why would they make up a whole new symbol that without us connecting 'rats = plague' really doesn't seem like a death metaphor.
*The major thinking here is that this is a good example of basing stories on real life and people being unable to distinguish the truth anymore. We can learn a lot from the way the story is recorded, even though it seems far from the truth. A lot of the symbolism we as modern readers see it in though may only be there from our modern lenses. Back when the rat version became a wide tale, the aesop of not lying worked as well as it does now, but now we have to admit the plague part probably wasn't there in the past.
*The believing in supernatural side will also offer a counterpoint that if the story did happen the way the famous version does, the town wouldn't want that truth being revealed. After all had they have paid the piper, they'd still have their children. So it's this thinking that they lied and the only place the "real" story would survive would be in the folk where it won't be until years later it's written down and becomes the tale we are used to hearing.
*Either way this is one of history's unresolved mysteries that is really glossed over in modern times. But often it's a good way to start an argument between your literature and history professors of just how much of it is history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much)
* Kind of/sort of/maybe or not. The problem is discerning the truth from the myth. The town of Hamelin was real and lost it's children. There records are based around the event the children left. However looking back the part about rats doesn't even enter the tales until much later. It's simply about the piper leading the children away. In modern times thanks to literature-minded people hammering it into us the pied piper can be seen as a metaphor for death, but a lot of that comes from this version of the story. Back then without this, and without the rats in the story at all, what in the world would be the purpose of adding a multi-color piper to the story if he did not exist? To the point they even made a stain glass window of the depiction, if the children died of plague or other disease, you would think they would have used one of the many religious manifestations for the afterlife, why would they make up a whole new symbol that without us connecting 'rats = plague' really doesn't seem like a death metaphor.
*The major thinking here is that this is a good example of basing stories on real life and people being unable to distinguish the truth anymore. We can learn a lot from the way the story is recorded, even though it seems far from the truth. A lot of the symbolism we as modern readers see it in though may only be there from our modern lenses. Back when the rat version became a wide tale, the aesop of not lying worked as well as it does now, but now we have to admit the plague part probably wasn't there in the past.
*The believing in supernatural side will also offer a counterpoint that if the story did happen the way the famous version does, the town wouldn't want that truth being revealed. After all had they have paid the piper, they'd still have their children. So it's this thinking that they lied and the only place the "real" story would survive would be in the folk where it won't be until years later it's written down and becomes the tale we are used to hearing.
*Either way this is one of history's unresolved mysteries that is really glossed over in modern times. But often it's a good way to start an argument between your literature and history professors of just how much of it is history and how much is symbolism. (They won't often agree on much)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town.
to:
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town. The attributed this to some sort of dishonestly on their own part, and the story became a penance for their own demons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: The story is about the plague.]]
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town.
They thought, as did many others centuries later, that the plague came from the rats. They worked to exterminate the rats, thinking it would cure their problem, but as it turns out, the rats weren't the ones that transmitted the disease in the first place, and the Children were "taken" by the plague. The "hundred years ago" was the record of a particularly bad bout of plague that killed all or most of the children in the town.
