|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jul 13 2012, 6:56am
Post #51 of 117
(1382 views)
Shortcut
|
So, bottom line, would Christopher have preferred that fewer people had read his father's work?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I appreciate that he dislikes the commercialism of his father's writings and the fact that a lot of people may think of PJ's films when "Lord of the Rings" is mentioned, but the flip side is that many people may not have been exposed to the world of Middle Earth without those films. For myself, though I had read 'The Hobbit' in high school - I likely would not have followed up with 'The Fellowship of the Ring' if not for the fact that I heard they were making the film trilogy. Not to mention, I never would have dreamed of going near 'The Silmarillion' or 'The Children of Hurin'. Art takes on different forms beyond the creator's (or their heir's) control. That's just the way it is (something George Lucas should learn). I am not ashamed of my equal love of both Mr. Tolkien's original books and PJ's masterful adaptations. Neither supplants the other in my view, and when I read the books - Mr. Tolkien can rest assured that it is his father's world and characters that I envision, not the wonderful interpretations put forth on film by Mr. Jackson. Even the same collector sensibilities that have had me buying every new version of the films on DVD and HD has seen me secure wonderful hardcover anniversary editions of the books from the UK with Professor Tolkien's original cover artwork. I treasure every difference between the originals and the film versions. It's the same argument we've been hearing since this whole thing began more than a decade ago. The books are still there, as perfect as ever. The films have not caused them to spontaneously combust - they have merely ensured that more people than ever know of their existence.
"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Jul 13 2012, 7:05am)
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 13 2012, 8:09am
Post #52 of 117
(1347 views)
Shortcut
|
The only problem I have is that some people assume that the books are as shallow as PJ's films. Particularly certain insufferable members of the literari, who now say: "I knew I didn't need to bother reading those books. They were silly after all." PJ and company achieved something remarkable, to be sure. But the films are for me much, much shallower, on all levels, than the books. And I hate that people sometimes conflate the two. That aside, I will continue to want to see cinematic or TV adaptations of LOTR, TH, the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin, in the future. I cannot get enough of it, even if I expect to dislike some of it.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jul 13 2012, 8:17am
Post #53 of 117
(1354 views)
Shortcut
|
Regardless of one's opinion on the films...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It a point that I agree with that those who see the films and deny themselves the experience of the books are missing out on something truly extraordinary. Hell, PJ's trilogy stands as my favorite film(s) of all time, and I'd still say it doesn't come close to everything that Tolkien's novel achieves. Thankfully I haven't encountered any LotR fans who haven't also read the books. But if I did, I'd probably smack them across the head.
"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Jul 13 2012, 3:16pm
Post #54 of 117
(1320 views)
Shortcut
|
I've know a few who tried to read LOTR after seeing the films.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And quit because it was "boring."
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Magpie
Immortal
Jul 13 2012, 3:32pm
Post #55 of 117
(1357 views)
Shortcut
|
well... the first half of FOTR could be considered a bit boring, don't you think?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think that's half the problem, right there. People think the experience of LOTR can be determined by what they encounter for those first chapters. Those chapters have their moments... but there's a lot there that isn't really a good indicator of what the total experience of LOTR does for its fans. I often tell people (I actually tell them as much as possible) that if they're going to 'try' (in their minds) LOTR, that the don't fuss too much over whether those early chapters are connecting with them or not. I tell them to skim or skip as much as they want in order to just keep going! I even give them permission to do this through Council of Elrond. (This is especially do-able if they've seen the movies. Then they have some sense of what is going on and won't be too confused by what they might have missed.) Once the Fellowship sets out, I tell them to read in earnest to at least the end of FOTR and possibly into the first few chapters of TTT. If the book still isn't connecting with them, then perhaps it's not to be. Or not to be at this moment. If they connect, chances are they will connect enough to want to go back and re-read those chapters they skimmed over (and I suggest they do this) and then they will enjoy them. But I think it's a lot to ask of people not totally enamored with fantasy or with reading, perhaps, to get through those first chapters. There isn't a lot of payback - at least not in terms of what the rest of the book offers in payback. When I suggest this, I get a lot of contrary opinions. Some people even recommend that people start with Sil, follow up with the Hobbit, then go to LOTR, which I think is an insane recommendation. But I guess I have worked enough in teaching situations where I want someone to learn/experience something they're either not sure they want to learn/experience... or are unsure they can... that I like to find tactics to convince them that they will, in fact, be able to learn/experience.. and that they will love it when they do. If letting them off the hook for not loving Tom or not wanting to wade through all the exposition of the Council of Elrond does that, it's a win situation for me.
LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide
|
|
|
Marionette
Rohan
Jul 13 2012, 5:24pm
Post #56 of 117
(1288 views)
Shortcut
|
Thats precisely my biggest issue as well. I fully support Christopher in that matter. But I understand and accept adaptations, mostly with other authors, with Tolkien I find it harder becoz his wonderful work is more complex to portray rightfully on film (sometimes I think it just can never be as the books). But, I am not at all one of those who fully prefer films over the marvellous and unique Tolkien writting.Films doesnt fulfil as books. But I see and enjoy films as a complement, as a version. The thing is close to what I feel about fanfics, free adaptations are like fanfics. It annoys me, the hek out of me, when fanfics are claimed as better than original authors work. Thats the issue.
"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began" Queen
|
|
|
Evernight
Rivendell
Jul 13 2012, 5:27pm
Post #57 of 117
(1272 views)
Shortcut
|
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit...
|
|
|
jschomburg
Rivendell
Jul 13 2012, 5:44pm
Post #60 of 117
(1312 views)
Shortcut
|
and I couldn't agree more. I was a "movie firster" and had it not been for the movies would never have read the books. Have now read LOTR, TH and The Silmarillion. So for me, thank goodness for PJs movies. Also, from the appendices to the movies, it is apparent to me how much respect all involved had for Tolkien and the his works. There has been no exploitation at the expense of Tolkien in my opinion.
|
|
|
Marionette
Rohan
Jul 13 2012, 5:50pm
Post #61 of 117
(1291 views)
Shortcut
|
And thats the huge dilema. Books and films are to me symbiosis. I was one of those who knew about Tolkien becoz of films, so I must be grateful. I guess the thing is to ignore some people who cant see what Tolkien is just becoz of movies. It would be great if Christopher could appreaciate the good thing of movies and fandoms, ignoring dumb people, and money merchandise circus. But he is old enough to finally realise whats truly important in life. Young people think its otherwise, but no, getting older is finally getting whats important, finally not being controled by hormones, by media and every new but deep inside useless and vanal stuff coming. The secret is not to close the mind that much...
"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began" Queen
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 13 2012, 7:51pm
Post #62 of 117
(1297 views)
Shortcut
|
I know quite a few people who tried to read the books long before the movies and quit for the same reason. So it's not the movie's fault that some people can't get through the books. People were trying and failing to get through LOTR long before PJ and Co. came along. Just in my immediate family, I have: Me, total Tolkien geek. My Mom, who re-reads the books regularly because she loves reading and can never find enough good books to read but really isn't a Tolkien geek at all A SIL who read the books once before the movies came out and has a yearly LOTR movie marathon and is the geekiest next to me (she was a Star Wars geek from way back). A sister who enjoys the story and the movies but is a slower reader and can't get through the books. Two brothers who have seen and enjoyed the movies but will never read the books (lack of time and/or interest) A father who never read them, never will (doesn't read fiction), only saw the movies because I asked him to - and then I had to explain the significance I saw in them. He kind of gets it now. Everybody understands and either supports or endures my fandom, because they can see, at least partially, why I love it so. That's thanks to the movies. If the movies didn't exist, the family read rate would be exactly the same - but half of my family would be completely unable to understand my Tolkien enthusiasm, much less share it in any way. I really don't think the movies are killing off readers - I think they're actually reaching people who would never read the books anyway, as well as advertising to readers who hadn't discovered them yet.
Silverlode "Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them. Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 13 2012, 8:12pm
Post #63 of 117
(1257 views)
Shortcut
|
The version of "because" you use is "becoz." Is that a reference to something?
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 13 2012, 8:16pm
Post #64 of 117
(1299 views)
Shortcut
|
Is wonderfully expressive, includes lots of colorful characters, some very amusing humor, and some very good (and often, funny) dialogue. It is also, in a way, more "relate-able" than the rest of the books, as it is written in a style that is far more modern, and about people (hobbits) that are far more modern in their habits, tastes and language. If anything, the second half of FOTR through to the end of ROTK should be considered far more boring than the first half of FOTR. I love it all, but I reject the assertion that the first half of FOTR is in any way boring.
|
|
|
Magpie
Immortal
Jul 13 2012, 9:20pm
Post #65 of 117
(1285 views)
Shortcut
|
I will keep my opinion and continue to give that same advice to new non-fantasy readers who attempt to read the book. The thing is, people want to counter the advice I give by saying what they think. I come at the advice I give by listening to what other people think. It's what makes a good educator vs someone who is merely smart. You find the first half of FOTR wonderfully expressive and the last half of ROTK far more boring. I find just the opposite. If you can find a way to make my experience invalid, the we can make yours the definitive truth and ask everyone to accept it as such and march in step with it. I hope you don't try to make my experience invalid. If you choose to, you won't win. Either way, I am not the only person who feels this way and I am not suggesting people go into it skimming or skipping. I suggest they do that if they are not connecting and feel like giving up. Would you have them give up? It's an easy stance to take because I think it helps us feel that we are special and only special people get it. But for all that I think Tolkien is special, I don't want only special people to get it. I want everyone to freakin get it. They all won't. But if I can take those marginal ones and do what I can to get them on the path, I'll do it. A good educator understands her 'student' and meets them where they are. It doesn't matter how right I think I am or you think you are, if the student isn't buying it... the student won't be on board. If people are giving up on trying to read LOTR after a few chapters, there is a possible fix. And I always tell them that they will want to go back and reread those chapters once they're hooked. Then they might grow to feel that they are wonderfully expressive ones. (On a side note, it might help to know that I work a lot with 'marginal' learners. I worked for 3 years in a psychiatric hospital for children. I worked for 7 years in an inner city school. I worked for 8 years beyond that as a volunteer with low achieving students. I taught folkdance to adults who felt clumsy and silly asking their bodies to do something they had never done before in front of people they didn't know, and I'm the go to person for low level tech help on this board for people who feel they just can't learn how to do 'that thing' that is vexing them. I don't give up on people. If they are struggling, I find a way to help them connect. It's easy when I can tap into my own paradigm to reach them. It's less easy, but often necessary, for me to step outside my own paradigm.)
LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 13 2012, 9:42pm
Post #66 of 117
(1271 views)
Shortcut
|
I wasn't talking about my likes and dislikes. I find all three books incredibly exciting and wonderful. I found absolutely none of it boring. That's my opinion. I was actually trying to step into the shoes of modern, non-fantasy readers. For these modern folks, the style, language, content and pace of the first half of FOTR should be, in a way, less boring, archaic, and uncomfortably-structured, than the rest of the books. That is based on what I know of many people's literary tastes. Though perhaps I am talking about a different level of readership. My comments on the book are often aimed at literary types who claim to not have the time for "archaic fantasy" of the LOTR variety. These people often find the first half of FOTR amusing, particularly as some of it reads as essentially a wonderfully subtle depiction of modern English culture. Many of them shut down when Aragorn starts making his archaic pronouncements... Me, I understand why Tolkien switches between "modes" of language, and find it brilliant, from a storytelling, linguistic and philological perspective. But most of the literati, or the pseudo-intellectuals who aspire to that status, have little respect for the language arts. Lit vs. lang, and all that.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Jul 14 2012, 2:33am
Post #67 of 117
(1300 views)
Shortcut
|
How do the literati phrase their disrespect for language arts?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've heard this again and again, both in reading about Tolkien's time and today: supposedly, the academic establishment's readers and writers of modern literature don't want to learn about or be bothered by the study of (the English) language as language. Since this isn't my field (except that I study Tolkien's world as a fan, and he and his followers always seem to be on the defensive on this issue), I can't say I've read any of this criticism or anti-criticism. How do these folks put it?
- "I don't have the time to learn both Lang and Lit"?
- "Modern English can be and must be read without reference to its origins, to avoid contamination by outdated values and incorrect ideas"?
- "Language study distracts from the real point of literary studies, which is (self-) referential"?
- "I couldn't learn Latin, Greek, Anglo-saxon, French, or German to save my life, so I say they don't matter"?
- "This is the 21st century, damn it - who cares what words Shakespeare and Dickens used"?
- "Dead white men wrote English in the old days, so I despise what they knew. They no longer have anything to say to us"?
Just kidding, with some of those. But I am curious if you could explain exactly by which arguments intellectuals can be so (seemingly) anti-intellectual as to deny that language is the fabric of literature, or to argue that it needn't be an integral part of the discipline of literary studies.
squire online: RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'. Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!" squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Beutlin
Rivendell
Jul 14 2012, 4:50am
Post #68 of 117
(1226 views)
Shortcut
|
...distinguish between literary critics and ordinary readers. Indeed, there have been critics of the "Lord of the Rings" aplenty who have criticized this "archaic" style and preferred the more "modern" chapters that centered on the hobbits (for example Harold Bloom). On the other hand most first-time readers of the LOTR are not literati. Most of them are adolescents looking for a story set in another world - a world full of magic, pseudo-medieval warfare, moral dualism and yes, archaic language. They are the ones who get bored by hobbits and their pre-industrial English agrarian culture. Every single person I know that stopped reading the LOTR at the first try did so somewhere between the hobbits' stay at Farmer Maggot's house and the council of Elrond. By the way, this phenomenon can not be attributed single-handedly to PJ's films.
Ceterum censeo montem artis magicae atrae esse delendum.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 14 2012, 5:49am
Post #69 of 117
(1238 views)
Shortcut
|
There is a strong distinction. Casual readers find the beginning of FOTR boring, and people I know who fashion themselves members of the literati find the first half of FOTR the most readable. An interesting phenomenon.
(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 14 2012, 5:49am)
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 14 2012, 5:57am
Post #70 of 117
(1261 views)
Shortcut
|
There is much anti-intellectualism amongst intellectuals
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And with the literati in particular, that anti-intellectualism can go very deep. But you see, those that make the arguments you have posted (which just about covers it) do not consider that particular brand of anti-intellectualism to be deplorable. Why? 1. Because it conforms to the "consensus" of the modern literati. To them, the debate/war between lit and lang is already over, and it's no use re-fighting it. It's settled, so please stop trying to unsettle it. 2. It's socially acceptable. There is an enormous degree of importance placed on being socially appropriate in the world of the literati. And if certain ideas violate the above-mentioned consensus, they become, simply, not socially acceptable. Put simply, it's cool to scoff at books that sit outside the consensus, and that coolness thinly veils the anti-intellectualism. 3. Such persons make the general argument that fantasy literature, or speculative fiction, is anti-intellectual itself, and therefore justify using non-intellectual arguments against it. They are, in essence, intolerant of what they deem to be an intolerant form of literature (which is why you often get charges of racism and sexism hurled at the so-called "genres.") It is truly fascinating to watch how entire communities of supposedly learned persons turn on double-standards like a switch. In short, it's a social thing. Perhaps, a human thing. Unfortunate, though.
(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 14 2012, 5:59am)
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Jul 14 2012, 12:00pm
Post #71 of 117
(1226 views)
Shortcut
|
Is it only genre literature we're talking about?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm dismayed that you agree that my joking prompts constitute the actual "arguments" stated by those who dismiss the importance of language usage in writing. But then you began to give more detail, and your focus turned strongly to the problem of the status of "generic" fiction - stories written to follow certain conventions of place, subject, plot, or style so that they may be easily marketed to readers who enjoy those qualities but who have less regard for artistry of expression or thought. I had thought you meant in your first post that literary intellectuals do not care about the impact of language and its usage in all forms of writing, including the central form that is literary fiction. I think Tolkien is an author of pretty rare language skills in the genre in which LotR and The Hobbit are usually placed: "fantasy". In fact, I've never read much other fantasy or science fiction after trying for several years in my youth. I discovered it is not purely the "fantasy" element of Tolkien that engages me, but rather the scope of his imagination, the connections he makes to world mythology, and his use of language. I would argue that your intellectuals or academics - and we aren't really defining our terms very well here, but never mind - are wrong to dismiss genre fiction (not just speculative fiction either) as a subject for study just because it is "anti-intellectual". Its very popularity makes it important, and its qualities can be analyzed and interpreted and enlarged upon, which is what intellectuals are supposed to do. But I understand that the generic area of English fiction is thought to be the property of "cultural studies" rather than "literary studies", because the use of language and the depth of artistry (as opposed to craftsmanship) in most genre fiction is indeed unremarkable, as far as I can tell. I am more baffled why, as you seem to be saying, critics and professors do not take pleasure in analyzing the roots and use of language even when it is employed in the writing of their central area of study, literary fiction - say, fiction written primarily for aesthetic pleasure with the goal of deeply exploring the human condition as it is experienced in today's society. But as I said, I am asking purely from theoretical curiosity, as I also don't read that kind of fiction almost at all, from either the past or present.
squire online: RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'. Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!" squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Finrod
Rohan
Jul 14 2012, 2:21pm
Post #72 of 117
(1241 views)
Shortcut
|
I was actually trying to step into the shoes of modern, non-fantasy readers. For these modern folks, the style, language, content and pace of the first half of FOTR should be, in a way, less boring, archaic, and uncomfortably-structured, than the rest of the books. That is based on what I know of many people's literary tastes. "Literary" tastes. Really? Go read all of Umberto Eco’s (non-fantasy) medieval murder mystery, The Name of the Rose. Then when you’re done, come back and discuss its first hundred pages, the ones about which Eco himself writes:
But there was another reason for including those long didactic passages. After reading the manuscript, my friends and editors suggested I abbreviate the first hundred pages, which they found very difficult and demanding. Without thinking twice, I refused, because, as I insisted, if somebody wanted to enter the abbey and live there for seven days, he had to accept the abbey's own pace. If he could not, he would never manage to read the whole book. Therefore those first hundred pages are like a penance or an initiation, and if someone does not like them, so much the for worse for him. He can stay at the foot of the hill. Then we shall discuss these literary matters. P.S. Good luck with the Latin.
…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.The Silmarillion, pp 150-151 while Felagund laughs beneath the treesin Valinor and comes no more to this grey world of tears and war.The Lays of Beleriand, p 311
|
|
|
Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor
Jul 14 2012, 4:34pm
Post #73 of 117
(1243 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Christopher is being a little harsh..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can understand why he dislikes the amount of action in the films, but he hasn't taken into account the rest of the picture: what about the wonderful props, the costumes and scenery, the dedicated work of PJ and the other crew members, and the (mostly) excellent performances from the cast members?
"A Wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins. Nor is he early: he arrives precisely when he means to!"-Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring.
|
|
|
geordie
Tol Eressea
Jul 14 2012, 4:55pm
Post #74 of 117
(1224 views)
Shortcut
|
No-one here can speak for Christopher -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- and I wouldn't presume to try and answer that question for him. But speaking as one who agrees with what he says about the movies, I'd say part of the problem could be signified by the sort of thing which can be seen in your sig. - that ain't Tolkien. The replacement of Tolkien's words with the scriptwriters' sub-par efforts does Tolkien no favours. IMO.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 14 2012, 6:00pm
Post #75 of 117
(1188 views)
Shortcut
|
In my experience, there is a section of the literati who have an easy time getting through the first half of FOTR, and despise the rest of it. That has to do with what they feel is an appropriately modern opening, followed by "deplorable archaism," as I have heard the rest of LOTR described by one person in particular. Eco gets a pass because he has been accepted into the "consensus." That is all I was speaking about. And what exactly is your P.S. supposed to imply? As a linguist, though I specialize in Semitic languages, I write and speak Latin fluently. Won't be a problem for me.
|
|
|
|
|