Please Proceed To Part 3 Of The Authorized Person Form On: Fill & Download for Free

Three instances of extreme, swaggering obnoxiousness all on the same day, in October, 2003, by two different TSA personnel in 2 different airports. My husband and I were traveling with my octogenarian mother in law (in a wheelchair) and her sister (with a cane), and my brother-in-law who is physically and mentally handicapped, from Miami to Boston on our way to Maine.PART 1: The first two instances were at Miami International airport, as we went through the checkpoint in order to proceed to the boarding gate. There were several empty checkpoints, so I took the ladies through one checkpoint and my husband took his brother through the next one. As I was helping the ladies with their shoes, wheelchair, etc. a TSA officer had made my husband open his carry on luggage for further inspection when he noticed that 2 other TSAs had taken his brother aside and were directing him to stand with his legs apart and arms raised. He could not easily achieve this given partial paralysis along the left side of his body, and he was attempting to comply by using his right hand to raise his paralyzed left arm.“I said keep you arms apart,” the TSA officer snapped at him. My husband tried to go to assist and was stopped with a command to “step away.”“Can’t you see he’s handicapped,” My husband asked.The one TSA took it as personal affront and told my husband that he was interfering with security procedures and could be arrested. He then came over to where a female TSA was going through my carry-on, looked at me and said to her, “anyone else try to give you lip, just take them out!” As he swaggered away, all full of himself, the female TSA and I exchanged glances and she rolled her eyes and mouthed “sorry.”’PART 2: We arrived at our gate rather shook up. The plane was there but boarding had not begun as we were rather early, so we approached an airline attendant by the check in desk and were in the process of asking about pre-boarding the 2 elderly ladies and brother when the TSA who gave us a hard time interrupted us and demanded to see my husband’s passport. We were so startled that my husband simply handed it to him. He took out a little spiral notebook from his front pocket of his jacket and wrote down the passport number.“Excuse me, what is this for?” My husband asked.“Official business,” he responded.As he spun around and walked away the airline official, who was as appalled as we, told us to get his badge number.I walked towards him and said excuse me, excuse me, I need you badge number.“I don’t have to tell you anything,” he called back to me without turning around.Of course he succeeded in thoroughly ruining the beginning of our vacation.PART 3: When we arrived in Boston we collected our luggage and were on our way to get our rental car, when I approached a guard to ask him if I we were headed in the right direction.“Excuse, me… I began, “can you tell me if… “He turned around and with all the authority and pomp he could muster, said,“Excuse me, PLEASE.”Here we go again…

This conversation will make for few beers in a bar.Allow me to give you some tidbits to think over.A : SOLO PERFORMANCESLet’s say we performed a randomized double blind test. I call a framebuilder, make two identical bikes, one made of flexible thin walled tubing and another made of carbon fiber composite. Then let’s say we wrapped the bikes so neither me nor you could visually tell the difference which was which.Next we randomly assign a set of these bikes to a bunch of people, fit them in EXACTLY the same manner and ask them to ride a short time trial on the same course. Let each person get the chance to test both bikes. Assume there is a period of rest in between the two tests so they can recuperate.What would you find? I’ll be fascinated to hear the answer.If the course were dead flat, I would suspect that any difference you find from the influence of bicycle alone will be statistically non-significant. If you do not understand what this means in stats speak, please look it up.If the course were a steep climb, then the weight of the bicycle would have an effect. But let’s put this into perspective. A 2kg decrease in bicycle weight will mean that the rider on the lighter bike will be roughly 30 seconds ahead at the end of a 5K time trial given a fixed power output.For a top competitor who is already emaciated at <6% body fat, those 30 seconds can mean all the difference in the world.For the average guy on the street who could kick his sugar habit and reduce 2kg body fat instead, that purchase is not the wisest decision in life he could make.However, here’s the thing. It’s not easy to lose 2kg either for some people. So hey, maybe that extra order of magnitude you pay for a expensive bike answers to another handicap which also has an economic cost to overcome.Take note that in the above analysis, I assumed the components are maintained the same while the frame is different.In the real world, complete bikes at different price points are packaged differently. Different components, tube shapes, aspect ratios, wheels etc. If the $500 bike comes with a terrible shifting mechanism and if that means you keep dropping a chain in a vital race in your season, that cost can be converted to a dollar loss. This is a lifecycle cost decision you need to weigh.From my own experience riding several kinds of road bikes, most of the improvements in solo performances have come longitudinally (over the course of a season) via better conditioning, optimization of body position and general training adaptation.I have seen a decent +1mph increase in average speed on the same course during two end points in a season. I’ll be hard pressed to isolate this improvement primarily to my bike. I should think it’s a multifactorial systems improvement rather than a component improvement.B : TEAM PERFORMANCE AT THE PROFESSIONAL LEVELHistorically, expensive bicycle technology show up at Professional races and then trickle down with time to the consumer. Professional cycling is a team sport and no one rider can make it to the top echelon in his career without team support.Since its inception in 1903 to the 1990's, the Tour de France had seen its winner's average speed increase some 50-55% as this site will show.But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came from bicycles alone? If you don't factor in the contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it significant to be appreciated?This most entertaining problem is one that maybe analyzed with a technique called multiple regression. This method, a staple in any statistician's arsenal of tools, allows one to estimate the effects of many factors on a single dependent variable, in our case - cycling performance.For starters, there are a number of independent variables that factor into a favorable cycling performance. I have shown these factors diagrammatically below.In my opinion, these independent or explanatory variables can be broadly termed into 4 categories :1. Human Performance Related - Physiology, training, nutrition, medicine and doping2. Technology Related - Bicycles, fancy apparel etc. We'll disregard other things and consider just bicycles.3. Race Specific - Course, weather, tactics employed, rules, etc.4. Random Events (Noise) - Example - a freak crash 2 km from the finish line that injured many riders, a neutralized stage due to the death of an athlete, any day to day variation that cannot be predicted but is present.In 100 years of cycling history, innovations have come and gone. Some have stuck through to Grand Tour racing, the list of which is mandated by the blessings of the UCI.To consider the effect of just bicycle technology alone on cycling speeds, a multiple regression analysis has to be performed. You would require lots of data for many years and a handy stats package to make some meaning out of it. Unless someone gives me serious consultation money, I won't be diving into such an endeavor anytime soon.But in 2010, Ph.D's Jan Heine and Mark Vande Kamp who write for the magazine Bicycle Quarterly sought to answer this question in their article titled "Are Modern Bicycles Faster? An Analysis of Tour de France Speed".To me, the article appeared to be a logical investigation of why speeds increased in the Tour and whether they could be explained by the latest racing bikes.The article had ignited controversy in cycling circles about its apparently "flawed" analysis. I think it will be to everyone's benefit if the strategy of the article's investigations are clarified first and foremost. We'll then explore its conclusions.Here's the strategy behind the article's investigation :1. Fundamental assumption : The fundamental assumption that the authors imply, but which is not stated explicitly in the article, is that all modern bicycles and related technology are introduced into the market to strictly increase cycling speeds. With this assumption, they proceed to quantify how much that speed increase is.2. Eliminate day to day performance variations : They selected the Tour de France as the main race of interest with the notion that multiple stages and over 150 riders will eliminate the influence of day-to-day variations in fitness, weather and other factors on individual performance.3. Eliminate course specific variations: With the view that courses change "somewhat" in the Tour de France, they selected the Milan-San Remo as a supplement in the analysis as the race has been run on the same course for over a 100 years without change. The race's difficulty has also been consistent since speed curves have remained more or less smooth for over a century.4. Separate human performance improvements from bicycling technology improvements : This one is tricky so pay attention. The authors wanted another race as a control to compare cycling with. They thought of a race from another branch of endurance sports that had little to do with technology or inconsistent conditions and where performance was mostly limited by the "human factor".They selected medium distance running, specifically the 5 and 10 km running race from all events worldwide and studied trends in running speeds. The logic? If bicycles have truly become faster, the trend line for cycling speeds in the Tour would deviate from that of human speeds in running by showing step increases. If bicycles have not become faster, the trend lines should closely match each other due to the "human factor" common to both endurance sports.5. Regression Analysis : Using the data of speeds, a regression analysis was performed on the Tour de France (TdF) and running speeds for the last 100 years. The "athletic performance" regression lines would show the long term speed trends for both races. This was made into a "Chart 1". "Chart 2" was also made where the authors smoothed TdF and 10 Km running speeds for many years by taking a 5-year running average. These curves were compared to each other and to the long term "athletic performance" regression line in Chart 1.Summary Of Results :1. Co-relation between actual TdF speeds and speeds predicted by the runner's trend line was 0.94. Strong.2. Co-relation between actual running speeds and the long term running speed trend line was 0.95. Also strong.3. 88% of increases in TdF speeds over the last 100 years can be explained by improved athletic performance.4. For both running and cycling, there appears to be an unexplained 9-12% that are simply random occurrences seen when athletes compete.5. The regression curve (or line fit) for TdF speeds have a shallower slope than that of running indicating that cycling speeds increased at a slower rate. The authors proposed that this is due to wind resistance factor in cycling as power demand increases by the cube of velocity. But the non-linearity of aerodynamic resistance is not much, it is instead minimized in the Tour de France and spread over a large group of riders.6. Over the last 20 years, TdF speed increase trends parallel that of runners' speeds. Technology has had minor roles to play in these achievements according to the logic in the analyses (no step increases were observed).7. There were steeper speed increases in the TdF in between 1926-1940 than running speeds during that time. The early 1920's saw periods of low performance and the authors proposed that World War I had depleted the pool of cycling champions taking part.The late 1920's, however, showed a marked speed increase which was not observed in the Milan San Remo. This got the authors to conclude that something particular to the TdF caused these increases. They propose the radical shortening of stage distances as a possible reason.There were pronounced speed increases in the 1930's that corresponded well with the significant, revolutionary and long term changes introduced on racing bikes such as lightweight steel frames with thinwall tubing. The authors state that of all advances, lightweight steel frames had the most pronounced effect on Tour speeds. These speed increases were also observed in the Milan San Remo in the 30's as well, indicating that this was a sport-wide phenomena.8. Since 1947, speed increases in cycling, relative to runner's speeds, came during times when cycling technology did not even change. The late 1950's saw a jump in cycling speeds but nothing significant was invented or innovated in bicycles during that time, since the introduction of Campagnolo's rear derailleur in 1951. Since speed increase came at a time when technology was stagnant, the logical conclusion is that speed increase cannot be explained by technology. The authors state that other reasons, like the paving of roads, may have been primarily responsible.9. In the early 1980's, TdF speeds increased between 1981-1982 without a rational reason and then dipped down without an explainable reason as well. Between 1985-1990, time trial bikes, such as those used by Greg Lemond in his 1989 Time Trial did increase stage speeds but the time trial stages were too short to influence overall speed of the entire Tour. Moreover, the bikes used in mass-start races "evolved little" during this period, wrote the authors.10. From 1999-2009, lots of things in bicycles evolved - from index shifting, to rear cassettes, increased gearing, aerodynamic wheels and ceramic bearings. Sure, the speeds of the Tour de France saw an almost linear increase as well. But what the authors found was that the long term trend of running speeds tracked this increase in cycling speeds very closely indicating that almost all these improvements can be tracked to physiological factors common to both running and cycling.Since 2005, speeds started to drop below the predicted trends, possibly indicating that strict doping controls are responsible for the lower speeds. Speeds decreased 3.5% from their peak, while running speeds decreased only 1.8%. This shows that something not common to both sports have influenced the speeds in cycling.By now, you must be tired with all this information overload. So let's take the justifications provided by the authors for speed fluctuations and plot it on a chart for the last 100 years. I did it below for you :Conclusions :The authors wrote that there is no evidence that advances in cycling technology since WWII led to faster racing speeds. There is no systematic co-relation between the two. Some speed increases came during times when athletic performance as a whole were increasing. Others came at times when bicycle technology and innovation were stagnant. The only period where bicycling technology led to a pronounced speed increase was during the 1930's with the introduction of lightweight steel frames. Bottom-line of this whole affair is as follows, quoted from the article :It is tempting to look over the Tour de France speed curve and pick [technology] factors that appear to have caused increases or decreases in speeds. [...] However, when taken in the context of all the data, these specific examples don't add up to a compelling case that bicycle technology increased Tour de France speeds. Neither of them stand up to close scrutiny. [...] Across the whole timeframe of the last 100 years, even radical changes like the introduction of the derailleurs did not alter the trend of Tour de France speeds. Clearly, the larger pattern suggests that bicycle technology has had little, if any, effect on racing speeds, especially in recent decades.Are the author’s experimental design flawed or excessive? Maybe. You could question why someone would engage is this kind of longitudinal study when the obvious study design would be to take one of today's athletes and measure them riding on one of today’s bike and then again on a series of older bikes.A reasoning can be borrowed from tennis, I understand that tennis players can serve almost as fast with an old wooden dunlop as with the latest model. I would not be surprised to find a similar answer with bikes. Such a study design is simple and the results would be more convincing than the study presented above.But Kamp's and Heine's study corresponds with one key truth you can’t take away from. There are many equipment geeks who believe that finding a way to remove just one more spoke or switching out their rear mech jockey wheel to polished ceramics will make them a champion.To them, I say ‘Dream on’.

You should never leave off the end of the bloody story.Yes, I’m looking at you, Peter Jackson.Because of those films, there may be a generation — who don’t read the books — who don’t know what the actual end of LotR is.It’s not that Frodo and friends go back to the Shire, where nothing at all has changed, and eventually Frodo has some form of PTSD and leaves for the West, with his little-guy friends to see him off. It’s not that at all.Saruman doesn’t die at Orthanc.The one thing you should never change is that, while Frodo and friends are recovering from the war in Gondor, all that time, and seeing Aragorn get married and stuff, bad things are happening back in the Shire.Saruman isn’t dead. Nor is Wormtongue. Nor is Saruman’s malice. Sauron might have popped it, but that doesn’t mean the ex Head of the White Council has decided to just give up.All the while that Frodo and Sam and Merry and Pippin are feasting and recovering in the White City… Saruman has made his way to the Shire, and set about ruling it and ruining it. At first through catspaws, and people who can be suckered into following him through a desire for power, like Lotho Sackville-Baggins — who had been trading with Saruman for pipeweed while the actual War was going on, and buying up land with the proceeds.That vision in Galadriel’s bowl, that was in the film, of the Shire in flames and people being cut down, because the War had reached out its hand there? That wasn’t a “what if”.By the time Frodo and the others arrive back, trees have been cut down and burned across the entire Shire. Gates block roads. Soulless new housing has been built, nothing like hobbit holes. Industry has been set up — represented by the mills, run by the Sandyman family. Rivers are spoiled. The hobbits are oppressed — not by orcs, but by those hobbits that Saruman can corrupt into being “Brown Shirts”. Food is rationed. Hobbits are “disappeared” if they object. Armed gangs of hobbit thugs make sure the place is run on a rational collective basis, taking food from hobbit farms and storing it for later. (Though ‘later’ never seems to come for the hobbit in the street.) Yes, some hobbits fought back, but they didn’t have our heroes’ advantage of having been through a war, and they were crushed.The Shire under Saruman’s rule — “Sharkey”, as he’s known there; “the old man” — is a nightmare of fascist and communist rule as seen through 1940s and 1950s eyes.And then you have to ask, who comes home to the Shire?Not ‘Pippin’, but Peregrin Took, knighted by Aragorn, King Elessar, and still one of the Guards of the Citadel. Peregrin, Thain of the Shire.And not ‘Merry’, but Meriadoc Brandybuck, Master of Buckland, with all the authority to summon the Shire to arms. Meriadoc, squire of the Rohirrim, part slayer of the Lord of the Nazgul along with Eowyn. And, like Peregrin, when he dies, he is buried back in Gondor next to Aragorn.Not Sam the gardener’s boy, either. Though given Tolkien’s attitudes to class, it isn’t surprising that Sam isn’t one of the “young Princes” (as he calls Merry and Pippin). Sam Gamgee uses Galadriel’s present to heal the damage done to the Shire, especially the trees, and earns a solid middle class seat of power for his help in putting things to rights. Samwise Gamgee, Mayor of the Shire for — seven times, is it? And possibly the last Ringbearer to go to the West.And Frodo the forgotten. Because although Frodo saved the world (by accident or providence), that cuts no ice back among hobbits. Sam is upset that Frodo is given so little credit, even for the “Scouring of the Shire” — the battle that sees Saruman overthrown and killed. (And Wormtongue likewise.)People change. It follows — and Tolkien knew it — that places change.If you don’t know that War swept out and devastated the Shire, the films demonstrate one of those awful “leave home for adventures, come home and nothing’s changed” stories. Because the malice of War, of Sauron, of Saruman, even of Wormtongue, will stoop down to ruin even small lovely places and societies because they can.If the reader — or viewer — doesn’t know this, they don’t know the story of the War of the Rings. It isn’t all camping trips and horrendous monsters, foreign cities and battles where there are (magically) no enemy corpses left to stink up the ground. The War is — as wars are — something in which you go off to be terrified and face death, and come home (if you come home) to find that you can’t; because home is now different.War savages and changes, not just the hobbits and men and elves involved, but the quiet little oasis so long protected by the Rangers. Bilbo might have been able to go “there and back again”, hunting treasure with dwarves. (And, yes, Mr Jackson, we might also need to have words about changing the motives of dwarves to appeal to a ‘modern audience’.) But even Bilbo comes back, heart shattered by Thorin’s death and his possession of the Arkenstone, to find himself declared dead, and his comfortable little hobbit hole being broken up and sold out from under him.I won’t be the first, or even the hundred and first, to point out that The Lord of the Rings is The Hobbit rewritten in deeper, larger, higher, and more terrifying terms. There is a journey across the world to a battle, and the dragon Smaug becomes the Eye of Sauron… And what this means is that if Tolkien repeated a theme twice, we should probably listen to him.Bilbo’s personal world being uprooted at the end of The Hobbit is writ large in “The Scouring of the Shire”. Tolkien considered it important. Bilbo is “never the same again” — an eccentric oddity, thrown out of Shire society. Though people are still polite, because of his treasure. Frodo is “never the same again” because he’s wounded too deeply to be ever healed on this side of the seas.His ship for Valinor should not be a soft focus event, complete with senile Bilbo and almost unchanged Gandalf.When Frodo takes ship for Valinor, Frodo is commiting suicide.This is what is left out of the films, and shouldn’t be. The elves can go to Valinor (like Elrond’s wife) because they are too hurt to remain on Earth—but they get the option of returning if they want. When Frodo goes, it’s a one-chance-only. It’s very clear, when you’re reading, that this is Frodo’s choice, to leave the Shire forever, for an afterlife.Gandalf has called Merry and Pippin to go back to the Shire with each other, because they should have company in their grief. Frodo has tried — desperately tried, for four years — to stay with them, but he can’t.‘But,’ said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, ‘I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done.’‘So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them. [1][…]At last the three companions turned away, and never again looking back they rode slowly homewards; and they spoke no word to one another until they came back to the Shire, but each had great comfort in his friends on the long grey road.At last they rode over the downs and took the East Road, and then Merry and Pippin rode on to Buckland; and already they were singing again as they went. But Sam turned to Bywater, and so came back up the Hill, as day was ending once more. [2]That is the ride back from a funeral, with the combined grief for someone lost, and the relief that they’re out of their pain at last.So, no, no postcard-coloured ships on a bright sea, with no real idea of what Frodo has left behind. It was Frodo who carried the Ring, it was Frodo who commanded at the Scouring of the Shire, and now it’s Frodo who is gone.What you should never change in LotR is how much grief there is at the end, as well as joy. Sam is the one who comes home to Rosie and little Elanor, but I think you can’t know what that means, if you don’t know about the ones who never come home.Frodo stands for all of them, and you shouldn’t try to make the end of the book into an undamaged homeland, and a painless apotheosis. The Victorians may have believed that suffering ennobles, but the truth in LotR is that suffering hurts.And — this is possibly the most important thing — without the Scouring of the Shire, you have no idea that Frodo isn’t a doe-eyed weakling, held up by the other three hobbits.He shows his strength as soon as they get back, at the new gate at the Brandywine, when hobbit guards won’t let them in:‘[…] we have orders.’‘Whose orders?’‘The Chief’s up at Bag End.’‘Chief? Chief? Do you mean Mr. Lotho?’ said Frodo.‘I suppose so, Mr. Baggins; but we have to say just ‘’the Chief’’ nowadays.’‘Do you indeed!’ said Frodo. ‘Well, I am glad he has dropped the Baggins at any rate. But it is evidently high time that the family dealt with him and put him in his place.’ [3]This is clearly not the Frodo who left Bag End. Confronted — I use the term loosely — by the Chief Shirriff, he has no hesitation in how he handles the situation:‘[…] It’s the Chief’s orders that you’re to come along quiet. We’re going to take you to Bywater and hand you over to the Chief’s Men; and when he deals with your case you can have your say. But if you don’t want to stay in the Lockholes any longer than you need, I should cut the say short, if I was you.’To the discomfiture of the Shirriffs Frodo and his companions all roared with laughter.‘Don’t be absurd!’ said Frodo. ‘I am going where I please, and in my own time. I happen to be going to Bag End on business, but if you insist on going too, well that is your affair.’‘Very well, Mr. Baggins,’ said the leader, pushing the barrier aside. ‘But don’t forget I’ve arrested you.’‘I won’t,’ said Frodo. ‘Never. But I may forgive you. […]’ [4]Most significantly, the events of the War of the Ring have not convinced Frodo that war is the answer to anything. He would prefer to free the Shire without bloodshed, though he accepts it must happen. And after the Battle of Bywater:‘Frodo had been in the battle, but he had not drawn sword, and his chief part had been to prevent the hobbits in their wrath at their losses, from slaying those of their enemies who threw down their weapons.’ [5]Without the Scouring of the Shire, we don’t understand how much Frodo has grown morally. We can’t understand it, without this.Saruman, defeated and thrown out of the Shire, tries to stab Frodo as he goes. Sam wants to kill him:‘No, Sam!’ said Frodo. ‘Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.’Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. ‘You have grown, Halfling,’ he said. ‘Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! […] [6]How are we to know what Frodo has become, if we never see it? If it’s changed so that we only see him writing his book, and suffering?There’s one part of the text, as the hobbits ride back from Bree towards the Shire, that I think Peter Jackson really misunderstood:‘Well here we are, just the four of us that started out together,’ said Merry. ‘We have left all the rest behind, one after another. It seems almost like a dream that has slowly faded.’‘Not to me,’ said Frodo. ‘To me it feels more like falling asleep again.’ [7]Isn’t that what the end of the film The Return of the King feels like?What Peter Jackson doesn’t get is that this is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. Events in the Shire are not supposed to feel like falling asleep again. They are supposed to shock the reader, and the audience, wide, wide awake.Nowhere is safe. World wars can reach into everywhere, even your comfortable little home. And when you do fight, and do win — even then, it may not be you who keeps the victory.This is what you should never change. And why not? I guess in this case we have to take Gandalf’s word for it, as he leaves Frodo and Sam and Merry and Pippin before they reach the Shire:‘[…] I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.’ [8]The one thing you should never change in The Lord of the Rings? Frodo and his friends coming home and setting the world to rights, because they now can.Anything else is just a wishy-washy watercolour form of PTSD, and the apotheosis of a ship departing from the Grey Havens. And no understanding at all that our heroes have changed.We should never change that.References:[1] [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19951-19954). Houghton Mifflin.][2] [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19984-19988). Houghton Mifflin. ][3] [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19345-19349). Houghton Mifflin.][4] J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19399-19405). Houghton Mifflin.[5] J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19698-19699). Houghton Mifflin.[6] J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19763-19768). Houghton Mifflin.[7] [J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19328-19330). Houghton Mifflin. ][8] J. R. R. Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings (Kindle Locations 19312-19314). Houghton Mifflin.Q: What’s the one thing you should never change in The Lord of the Rings?