The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Main:
Christopher Tolkien speaks!



Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 1:50am


Views: 6016
Christopher Tolkien speaks!
Christopher Tolkien has given an extraordinarily rare interview with the French paper Le Monde, which has now been translated into English. I can't vouch for the translation, not being a French speaker, but it certainly is much more coherent than the Google Translate that I attempted to read of the original French article. I don't have a lot of time to comment, but there are some remarkable statements in here.

One thing is clear, assuming that is an accurate translation and that Christopher is not misquoted: no longer can it be said that Christopher Tolkien has not publicly criticized Peter Jackson's films!

http://sedulia.blogs.com/.../was-first-felt.html

I'll be curious to hear other's reactions.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


QuackingTroll
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 2:05am


Views: 4597
Makes one think, if Tolkien were alive today... //
 


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Jul 12 2012, 2:19am


Views: 4745
"...making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25."
That statement seems completely out of touch, considering the wide appeal these films had. Though it's not like I'm entirely surprised. I admire Christopher a great deal for the work he's done regarding his father's writings, but it's really a shame he's so close minded regarding the films, adaptation, etc.


"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 12 2012, 2:23am)


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jul 12 2012, 2:31am


Views: 4607
If JRR were alive
He'd be on set and the estate would get their fair share.
Merchandising wasn't around back when he sold the rights ... so they got screwed there.

I don't think Christopher Tolkien objects so much to the movies adaptaion, but the circus of it all in general and the changes made to appeal/cater to social groups (like Bain to suck in the Justin Beiber crowd).

Cheer up Chris ... there are plenty of us who love the books for what they are!!!
Don't let Hollywood and Studio execs ruin for you and enjoy the movies for what they are!

Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jul 12 2012, 2:56am


Views: 4612
I find irony here.
After publication of The Lord of the Rings there was a sector of reviewers who dismissed it as being mere fantasy, and so could not be considered literature. Now Christopher is dismayed about the story’s overwhelming popularity in modern media and products, which he believes detract from the book’s philosophical impact.

PJ always said that his movies would not be the definitive LOTR and that he could only make his version of the story. Those movie-inspired millions of new readers of LOTR will see for themselves the breadth and depth of Tolkien’s creation – an idea that Christopher should take comfort from.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.

Ataahua's stories


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 3:02am


Views: 4528
Not just the film stuff
I know the comments about the films are the most controversial things said in this article, but there are a lot of other really interesting things. For instance, this comment of Baille, Christopher's wife:

Quote

"When he left, he would put armfuls of papers into a suitcase which he always kept with him. When he arrived, he would sometimes pull out any sheet at random and start with that one!"
What a vivid illustration of Tolkien's random genius!

Perhaps the most interesting comment to me is this one of Christopher's:

Quote

First in England, then in France, he reassembled the parts of The Silmarillion, made the whole more coherent, added padding here and there, and published the book in 1977, with some remorse. "Right away I thought that the book was good, but a little false, in the sense that I had had to invent some passages," he explains. At the time, he even had a disagreeable dream. "I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something in great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."

At the risk of contradicting Christopher (something I have been criticized for in the past, despite my great admiration for the man), I think his father would have been more upset had Christopher not published The Silmarillion than he would have been with what he did publish, faults and all (most of which are due to Tolkien's own failure to complete the work). If that makes sense.

The article does have some errors in it (due to the reporter, not to Christopher and the others interviewed). For instance, geordie will surely confirm that it is quite inaccurate to say that " Until then [when The Hobbit was published], Tolkien had published only a renowned essay on Beowulf ... ." Still, it is an interesting article, and a worthwhile glimpse into the world of the Tolkien family and it's current patriarch.

One other thing that it appears to put to rest. There has been much debate about whether the the films really increased sales of the books all that much, or whether their popularity remained fairly consistent. This quote from David Brawn, at HarperCollins seems to answer that pretty conclusively: " In the United Kingdom, sales went up by 1000% after the release of the first movie in the trilogy." Still, Christopher and the others interviewed make a compelling argument that the increased popularity of the books is overwhelmed by the overall effect of the films and the inundation into popular culture.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Arandiel
Grey Havens

Jul 12 2012, 4:54am


Views: 4519
Quite a contrast to J.K. Rowling's handling of many similar issues,
and there ends what I can say while remaining polite in the face of the elitism/popularism pie fight. sigh.

Walk to Rivendell: There and Back Again Challenge - getting thirteen rowdy Dwarves, one grumpy Wizard, and a beleaguered Hobbit from Bag End to the Lonely Mountain by December 2012; and that same much enriched Hobbit back to Bag End by December 2013

Join us, Thursdays on Main!


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jul 12 2012, 6:28am


Views: 4514
Christopher is in a tough position.
He's the "guardian" of his father's work. This, even if his father's works were not so popular the world over, would be difficult. It's my observation that one who has inherited a duty to protect someone else's work , name, or reputation is often even more zealous than the person himself would have been. In fact, it's hard not to be, since one worries more over being too slack than too careful, a worry which is echoed in Christopher's guilt over his personal additions to the published Silmarillion. Would Tolkien himself have liked or approved of all the ways that his creation has been adopted and adapted by pop culture? Surely not, and we know that his fanbase was a trial to him. But in a way, it may be even harder on Christopher trying to speak for him than it would have been for him to speak for himself. In any case, trying to contain something that has made its way into popular culture is impossible. It really is best that he ignores it because there is really nothing he can do about it.

Also, Christopher is 87. I cannot imagine any of my grandparents at the age of 87 watching and enjoying LOTR. My grandmother, who was about that age, saw a brief bit of the Balrog confrontation on a cousin's new home theater setup, and she was aghast. This was not what her generation considered entertainment. We have a generational culture gap here along with all the other factors. I do not think a movie could be made which would appeal to general audiences at this time and Christopher Tolkien.

In a purely speculative vein, I would love to be a fly on the wall for a conversation between Christopher Tolkien and Christopher Lee about the films. Being two gentlemen of the same generation but in very different positions regarding the modern adaptation, that would surely be a conversation worth hearing.
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

(This post was edited by Silverlode on Jul 12 2012, 6:30am)


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 7:29am


Views: 4591
What LotR the book set out to be...
...as I understand it, was a "sequel to The Hobbit". TH was a children's book. LotR was pitched at a somewhat older audience. I believe one could reasonably make the argument that Tolkien intended it as an "action book for young people 15 to 25."

Of course, it is much more than that, as is TH. The "esthetic and philosophical impact" of the book is a blessing beyond his hopes, I think, although from his letters it is clear that he did (after the fact) begin to realize what he had achieved. In fact, it's possible that this realization is what paralyzed his efforts to whip the Sil into shape.




Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 7:32am


Views: 4495
On a slightly contentious note -
- the article in Le Monde was published last Saturday; a couple of folk I know are working on a translation, but waiting to get the necessary permissions to reproduce them on the net.

This translation appeared soon after the original was published. I don't see any acknowledgements for the newspaper, nor the article's author; but I note Sedulia is quick to claim copyright of his own work, that is, his translation. Hmm.
.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 7:50am


Views: 4531
I don't think Tolkien had an age range in mind -
- What he says in the Foreword to the 2nd edition is

'The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers...'

I certainly don't agree that Tolkien 'intended LotR as an 'action book', for any group of readers, whether defined by age or any other 'demographic'. (I wonder if that word was in common use back then?) He just dind't think along those lines, as far as I can see.

As it happens, I agree with young Christopher on this point - and, as Voronwe says, there is more in the article to look at and think about. For example; I and others, have seen another chair in which, we're told, Tolkien sat whilst composing TH and LotR. Which story is 'true'? Probably both of 'em - I expect the Tolkiens had more than one chair!

Wink


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 8:23am


Views: 4435
Yes, well -
In reply to -

"geordie will surely confirm that it is quite inaccurate to say that " Until then [when The Hobbit was published], Tolkien had published only a renowned essay on Beowulf ... ."

That's true - by the time of the first publication of TH on September 21st 1937, Tolkien had published some sixty-one items. Mostly poetry as it happens; but also some heavy-duty academic stuff, too, including an article on Ancrenne Wisse which Tom Shippey describes as 'the most perfect of Tolkien's academic writings'.

I think it's also a bit precious of the Le Monde article to say that

" Until then [when The Hobbit was published], Tolkien had published only a renowned essay on Beowulf ... ."

- because Tolkien's lecture 'Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics' was published just a month or two before TH, on 1st July 1937. See this page -

http://www.forodrim.org/arda/tbchron.html

Shippey thinks a lot of Ancrenne Wisse, and 'The Monsters and the Critics - and also Tolkien's foray into the Old English poem 'The Battle of Maldon'. (ie, tolkien's 'The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son', first published in 'Essays and Studies 1953'). Shippey says that these three 'Rocked the collective jaw of academe right back on its spine and would have done if (Tolkien) had never written a word of fiction'.

('Tolkien's Academic Reputation Now, in 'Roots and Branches: Selected Papers on Tolkien by Tom Shippey)

Mind you, Shippey adds that in his opinion, Tolkien was wrong in two out of three of those pieces, but that's academics for ya! Wink

Being the province of a biblionut, the geordie library has copies of all three of these writings by Tolkien, of course - in the original dustwrappers (except for 'Monsters' - the most usual way of finding that lecture is as an offprint of the Proceedings of the British Academy 1936, and therefore has soft covers).

There's also a rare item in the geordie library audio section - a recording of 'The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son', read by Tolkien himself. Contrary to a common belief that tolkien despised technology, the old chap was very fond of his tape-recorder (not to mention his typewriters - he had several, inc. one with an Anglo-Saxon typeface!) Tolkien recorded his poem in his sitting-room at his house in Sandfield Road, Oxford. You can hear the clock ticking in the background, and the sound of a car going by outside. Tolkien had a great sense of the dramatic, despite what he had to say about 'drama' in general.

The original article in Essays and Studies also had an Introduction, titled 'Beorhtnoth's Death', and an afterword called 'Ofermod'. Christopher Tolkien reads both of these on this recording; he reads as well as his father, which is to say, very well indeed. (but then Christopher was a teacher at Oxford too).

In an earlier post, I said I agree with what Christopher says in the le Monde article about his feelings about the movies. I hope anyone who's read this post will get some inkling as to why I should feel that in this, as in many other ways, I'm on Christopher's side.





(This post was edited by geordie on Jul 12 2012, 8:32am)


sador
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 8:31am


Views: 4476
Well,
He has not criticised the films as films, but rather the idea of mass-marketing his father's writings. The article doesn't even indicate whether he had actually seen any of them.

I think Christopher is concerned with the cultural phenomenon as such - but unlike Led Zeppelin or even Bakshi, Jackson did offer an interpretation some fans see as authentic. Which is naturally different from the original. It's a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

The most I can say is that I gave up annually reading The Lord of the Rings before the age of 25. Since Jackson's movies came out, I have given more thought to Tolkien's works than ever before, and bought quite a few books by JRRT, Christopher and several scholars - while not watching any other film Jackson himself directed.

It's up to you to decide on which side of the scales this case should weigh.
"I personally still think of The Hobbit as a brilliant story aimed specifically at older children, with its own theme about growing up, that has little to do with the epic of the Ring that followed it."
- squire.



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for An Unexpected Party!


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 8:52am


Views: 4397
Oops - a correction
I was going off my memory for parts of my earlier post - I wrote:

"Shippey says that these three 'Rocked the collective jaw of academe right back on its spine and would have done if (Tolkien) had never written a word of fiction'."

Whereas what Shippey actually wrote was:

"...there is no doubt that three of Tolkien's articles rocked the collective jaw of academe right back on its spine, and would have done so if he had never published a line of fiction."

Sorry about that.

Smile



geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 10:03am


Views: 4596
Christopher isn't the only one who feels they're 'action movies'
- Verlyn Flieger says the same thing in her Q&A session with ToRn, in 'More People's Guide to JRR Tolkien'. Flieger says:

"...Jackson has turned an extremely sophisticated, complex and subtle - and very long - story into an action movie that I think satisfies the audience for whom he made it".
(More People's Guide, p.116)

Flieger goes on in this vein at some length. I wonder if she was ever asked to contribute to the dvd extras, like Tom Shippey?

Smile


sador
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 10:32am


Views: 4432
Such bad manner!
I forgot to thank you for posting this!

In Reply To
I can't vouch for the translation, not being a French speaker, but it certainly is much more coherent than the Google Translate that I attempted to read of the original French article.
Now that's a real fan for you! It never occured to me to try that.
I also trusted someone would post a translation here. Smile
"I personally still think of The Hobbit as a brilliant story aimed specifically at older children, with its own theme about growing up, that has little to do with the epic of the Ring that followed it."
- squire.



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for An Unexpected Party!


imin
Valinor


Jul 12 2012, 2:27pm


Views: 4378
Very interesting
From reading that i think Christopher is annoyed in that he feels PJ's interpretation of his fathers work is becoming the main focus or THE work and the book is less important. He also doesn't like how it has taken out the more somber/slow/reflective parts and as he sees it is just an action movie. It makes me think that to him it has narrowed what ME is and cheapened it.

He is very old now and i doubt he would like LOTR movies whether he was Tolkien's son or not, its just not a film i can imagine someone of that age appreciating as much as a younger person (anyone younger than him).

It will be interesting to see when he passes, what direction the Tolkien Estate will take with (is it Adam Tolkien) at the head. I would like to think he will carry on in the same way as Christopher as in continue to work hard and publicize the books Tolkien made but for me i don't want them to sell the rights to The Silmarillion for example. At this time i don't think they would but you never know what will happen in the future. I imagine copyright will come into it some day, but i think you can extend/renew copyright so who knows!


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 12 2012, 2:55pm


Views: 4462
It is too bad that Christopher Tolkien can't be more positive
It is as much thanks to the Peter Jackson films (perhaps more so) as to his own efforts to expand on his father's bibliography that JRR Tolkien is arguably more widely read now than ever before.
"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 3:21pm


Views: 4434
Yes and no
What you say is undeniably true. There is for more discussion of and thought about Tolkien's work than there ever would have been without the films. However, there is an element of what Christopher is saying that is equally undeniably true. There is a commercialization of Middle-earth that antithetical to what Tolkien wrote and believed.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 3:36pm


Views: 4384
I agree with what you say about Christopher -
- I've just had occassion to look again at an article on Tolkien by Bill Cater (He of 'The English speaking world is divided into those who have read TH and LotR, and those who are going to read them' fame). Cater wrote those words in 1972.

Here's a link to a much later article, where he muses on his past meetings with JRR, and with Christopher, and the possible effects of the movies on the family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4726863/We-talked-of-love-death-and-fairy-tales.html

.


(This post was edited by geordie on Jul 12 2012, 3:37pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 4:43pm


Views: 4389
That's an extraordinary article, Voronwe
I'm so glad you posted the link.

You were curious about people's reactions. I had immense sympathy for him, reading that, and a sense of how deeply committed he has been to his father's work, and for how long. It seems analogous, in a way, to someone who gives up their own life, career or time, to caring for a disabled or elderly parent. It's a huge undertaking and responsibility and you're always driven by the sense that however much you give it can never be enough. His dream after bringing the Silmarillion to publication seems very sad to me. I didn't know his father and he did, but I'd like to think that JRRTolkien would be pleased and proud - perhaps even a little in awe of the fact that his son has devoted so much of himself to complete his work.

Of course anyone reading the article might point to the fact that the Estate has gained an awful lot financially from the films, both in terms of percentages of the takings and in increased book sales. Perhaps it would be satisfying if Christopher Tolkien could acknowledge that or derive some pleasure from it, but I can well understand why he doesn't. Reading the article I feel almost guilty for liking the films - but I still like them.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 6:35pm


Views: 4329
Wonderful comments //
 
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 6:41pm


Views: 4344
Well,
In reply to -

"Of course anyone reading the article might point to the fact that the Estate has gained an awful lot financially from the films, both in terms of percentages of the takings and in increased book sales. Perhaps it would be satisfying if Christopher Tolkien could acknowledge that or derive some pleasure from it, but I can well understand why he doesn't."


- I could point to the final paragraphs of the article by Bill Cater which I pointed to above:

>Recalling our meeting in the Seventies, I wrote to Christopher recently, through those Oxford solicitors, asking him if he still found his father's works a source of scholarly as well as personal interest. Did he ever regret quitting Oxford? Was there anything more to be hewn from the quarry of manuscripts his father had left? And did he ever feel, rather like the inheritor of some great landed estate, that though his bequest was a source of pride and pleasure, it was also a wearying burden of responsibility?
His reply, through the solicitor, thanked me, said pleasant things about my contacts with his parents but refused to be interviewed.
"The forthcoming films and their attendant publicity have given rise to press interest in Mr Tolkien and members of his family on a scale and at a level of intrusion not previously known interest focuses almost exclusively on the success of Tolkien's writing in financial terms and the material benefits resulting to his family," said the letter.
Put briefly, there should be more interest in the work and less interest in the money.
I quite agree. It's a shame. But The Lord of the Rings is now a show. And that's show business.<
.


(This post was edited by geordie on Jul 12 2012, 6:42pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 6:53pm


Views: 4342
I agree, geordie...
If there's one thing that shines through the article Voronwe posted it's that Christopher Tolkien is committed to the work and not the money. And as I said, I can understand why he feels as he does about the commercialisation - and trivialisation - of parts of that work. I wish it weren't so, because all those of use who love his father's writing owe him so much.

I followed your link too and found Bill Cater's article very interesting - why do I always feel as if you're telling me off! Wink


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 12 2012, 7:11pm


Views: 4310
Ah -
- if I come across that way, I'm sorry. I don't mean to. (anyway; who am I to tell anybody off?) Smile

Rest assured, I appreciate your comments and respect your point of view - what's more, I agree with you as often as not.

.


Demosthenes
Sr. Staff


Jul 12 2012, 7:25pm


Views: 1541
Agreed!
I think part of it is that it's just a wonderful piece of writing. It's very sympathetic, and it really puts you there with CRT.

And you know, CRT seems more sad than anything. And that affected me more than anger from him would.
TheOneRing.net Senior Staff
IRC Admin and Hall of Fire moderator


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 9:01pm


Views: 1546
Sounds about right
As someone who was over 25 when he saw the films, I can say that I felt they were action films made for a younger audience.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 9:02pm


Views: 1544
Not liking something
Doesn't automatically make someone "closed-minded." That's a rather arrogant thing to say.

I could just as easily say: "You are closed-minded for not criticizing the films more."

See how ridiculous that sounds? These things are matters of taste, not "open or closed minds."


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 12 2012, 9:08pm)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 9:05pm


Views: 1555
JK Rowling and Christopher Tolkien simply have different views on what constitutes good "popularization"
Not sure why we can't just accept that and move on.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Jul 12 2012, 9:35pm


Views: 1522
No surprise there ;)
Your "glowing" opinions on the films are well documented. Tongue

Still, I don't agree with this assessment. I think the wide variety of people who were pulled in by the trilogy speaks against that generalization. Aside from the age thing, I also think labeling them as mere "action" movies is off the mark.


"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


Eruonen
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 9:40pm


Views: 1452
I think he is simply too close to the subject and simply
cannot see beyond the scope he has grown up with all of his life....understandable. However, I think he is wrong to assume the commercial success takes away from the literary impact. They are two very different things and anyone who has read the books of JRRT knows this very well. We can appreciate the various interpretations while retaiing our own private book experiences. I can only hope Adam Tolkien will see further film rights as one way to keep JRRT's works alive. People who have never read the books but have seen the films often go back to the source material.


Donry
Tol Eressea


Jul 12 2012, 9:59pm


Views: 1484
Its a very interesting situation....
I really appreciate CT's approach to protecting his father's work and legacy (and his own since he's worked on so much of it himself). It may seem a bit narrow to some, close-minded even, but with the media and internet today, things can get out of control or 'viral' in mere moments. It must be exhausting to try and exhibit so much control over such a huge entity. Considering how exhausting all the work he's already done has been (as stated in the article, specifically are HoME), I think CT has every right to be a bit worn down and seemingly tired.....which maybe leads to a bit of grumpiness on his part! I appreciate the effort to preserve the work and the legacy, I really do.
Having said that, I think the 'exhibition' that has resulted in the Jackson movies has benefited Tolkien as a whole. I have a 13-year old stepson, and his generation, from what I have witnessed, does not have the attention span to sit and read The Simarillion or the Lord of the Rings. This is where Jackson's adaption can help this younger generation appreciate the works of Tolkien. I'm don't want to get into a huge discussion on the youth and wha they should and shouldn't be doing as far as reading, video games and all that.....I have been doing that for almost 13 years and its never ending. Reality is reality and this kids today are not going to sit down and read like past generations, its a losing position on a large scale in my opinion. However, the movies can spark a conversation about what is in the movies and what isn't. That is key for me. I think Tolkien's works have been preserved and will be for future generations, but it the way its perserved and presented will have to evovle as well.
I like both sides of the discussion, if in fact, it can be reduced down to 'two' sides of a discussion. How stereotypically Canadian of me!
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?"

www.onesecondleft.com
@RDon1secleft
http://donryfetor.blogspot.com/
@DonryFetor


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 10:19pm


Views: 1498
One area where I think Christopher and his father misintepreted the fanbase
Is in their understanding of their fans' motivations.

In my view, most people that are very, very interested in Tolkien's work love it because of the escapism - the transportation into another world.

And Tolkien was a staunch defender of "escapism" though he didn't think of the term in its pejorative sense.

In his famous "On Fairy Stories," Tolkien defends escapism, and draws attention to the role of fairy-stories in regard to "recovery, escape and consolation."

In this discourse, he describes this need for recovery, escape and consolation as related to "cerain primordial human desires." Here's the full quote:

Quote
The magic of Faerie is not an end in itself, its virtue is in its operations: among these are satisfaction of certain primordial human desires. One of these desires is to survey the depths of space and time. Another is (as will be seen) to hold communion with other living things."
In this context, I think JRR and Christopher often misunderstood their fanbase. Many of their fans, at least in my experience, are seeking just that kind of escape. One that lets them survey the depths of space and time beyond their own rather mundane existence, and gives them the opportunity to hold communion with living things beyond memory - the beings of a forgotten past in the form of elves, hobbits, dwarves, Ents, trolls, goblins, demons and ships that sail into Undying Lands.

IMO, even the commercialization of LOTR - yoys, boardgames, videogames, etc., all mostly feed that kind of a desire. The desire to get away for a spell. To drink the water of another world.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Jul 12 2012, 10:35pm


Views: 1428
That is finest Post I have read here in a long time.
CONGRATULATIONS...

Bomby


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 10:47pm


Views: 1401
Thanks!
Though there are a few typos in there. Smile

Was feeling rather inspired, and almost slipped into a Bombadil-esque state of poetic stream of consciousness... Smile


Malveth The Eternal
Lorien

Jul 12 2012, 11:06pm


Views: 1404
Yep...
He succinctly sums up my own feelings nicely!!

It's truly heartwarming to hear the second most important voice in Middle Earth reminding the world that the original literary works are what matter most & that the rest of it is is truly secondary.

Thank you, C.T., for giving voice to the feelings of millions of Tolkien fans...who refuse to be labeled "purists" and placed in storage to be forgotten...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/CarrotField/257960949766?created


Malveth The Eternal
Lorien

Jul 12 2012, 11:16pm


Views: 1398
"Bought" doesn't mean "Read"
I know too many people who ran out and bought LOR's in 2001 after FOtR was released who still haven't gotten past chapter 3. The films set the audience up for a simplistic kind of entertainment they're not going to find in the pages of Tolkien. So yeah, they shipped a lot of units 2001-2003 but not many buyers actually read & appreciated the original work. There are definitely two camps: Tolkien fans & PJ movie fans & very few JrrT/PJ fans compared to the density of the two aforementioned camps.

Hey & you know what?? CT doesn't have to be "positive" "open minded" or anything else about the movies. The original works are a part of his life & he's put most of his life into preserving & protecting them. I wish he'd be less polite about it all!

But you know, these days, if every copy of LOR's on earth was pulped there'd be a huge huge audience of so-called fans who only care about the movies & spin-offs who wouldn't bat an eyelash. If it was your father's work I think you'd be a little chagrined about it too!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/CarrotField/257960949766?created


imin
Valinor


Jul 12 2012, 11:27pm


Views: 1382
This is true
From my group of friends i have had some who didnt see the point in reading the books as the films are out and they are 'basically the same'. Others who tried but found it difficult going and so stopped, most around the point of Tom Bombadil. Another friend stopped at the council of elrond chapter as they found it too hard going, but they have said they are wanting to re-read the book and get through that now they are older. Finally i have another friend who got to the battle of the hornburg and realised it wasnt like the movies with pages upon pages of fighting, and just stopped and said it was a waste of time! - He calls the LOTR films among his top 10 films of all time.

I have to say a couple read the book and loved it so not everyone felt the movies were better but overall most who read the book did so because of the movie but gave up as it wasnt like the film (these friends dont read normally so perhaps its a bit much going straight to Tolkien). \

Just want to add that i am a fan of both the book and the film, with the book always being number one to me but nevertheless a fan of both. I imagine a fair few people here will say the same but i know on other forums that isnt the case so much, with a fair amount of indifference going towards dislike of the film adaptation!


(This post was edited by imin on Jul 12 2012, 11:29pm)


QuackingTroll
Valinor

Jul 12 2012, 11:32pm


Views: 1448
But, I get the sense C. Tolkien has not seen the movies...
So to criticize them in that case would be closed-minded.

Now, let's all calm down and listen to what I'm listening to... http://youtu.be/dSTmlzveAJQ


Kirkman
The Shire

Jul 12 2012, 11:53pm


Views: 1415
Films gateway to the books
I never read LOTR or TH as a kid. But after Jackson's FOTR came out, I watched it five times and bought the books.

Since then, I've gone through them about once a year or more. I have now read The Hobbit aloud to my kids twice, and LOTR once.

Not only that, but I went on to read the Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, the Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, parts of HoME, History of the Hobbit, most of Shippey's stuff, Tolkien letters, etc, etc, etc.

In short, the films were a gateway to the books. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this, but that's how it was for me.

I have immense respect for Christopher Tolkien. I appreciate his diligence as literary executor and the way he devoted such a large chunk of his life to so massive a task.

It was a pleasure to read this profile. Frankly I wish we could hear more from him. But I will have to live with hearing him on Audio CD, or reading his editorial voice in HoME.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 13 2012, 12:07am


Views: 1429
No film adaption of LotR or TH could ever match the version in C. Tolkien's head...
...probably not even if he financed, scripted and directed the films himself. That is true of every single work that his father left behind. It is easy to find fault, and I can certainly undertand a certain bitterness towards Hollywood with its skeevy contract lawyers and questionable accounting procedures. It is possible, though, to get a fair deal from Hollywood studios if one possesses good business sense and a competent lawyer of one's own. Just don't turn your back on them!
"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


DavidDragonSlayer
The Shire


Jul 13 2012, 12:49am


Views: 1372
I agree, and have a Star Wars comparison
I fully agree. He's too close to the story, and yes, it is understandable that he would be.

I do think however, that, being so close, he's having trouble seeing that others are taking something from the stories. That taking happens all the time, when somebody creates a work of fiction.

Witness all the howling by Star Wars fans about the Prequels. Sorry people, it was his work to begin with, and if his back-story doesn't fit with what you imagined the back-story to be? Sorry, it is his creation.


DavidDragonSlayer
The Shire


Jul 13 2012, 12:52am


Views: 1354
Too true
I wonder if the opinion that LOTR was "unfilmable" meant they were not as careful in contractual dealings as they might otherwise have been?


Eruonen
Half-elven


Jul 13 2012, 12:54am


Views: 1365
Any work..literature, art, music etc. becomes "lost" in the public
domain...be it private or commercial once presented. The originator cannot control it for long as it takes on a life of its own....a birthing of a secondary creation requires its freedom after a certain point. It will be interpreted, reinterpreted over and over and over. It takes on a life of its own and all the originator can do is either fight for as long as they can or sit back and watch it grow (if lucky). CT has fought the good fight in his mind as it represents his father's trust and his personal stake. But all things come to an end...i.e. control of a work.


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Jul 13 2012, 1:17am


Views: 1357
I have always found it a pity...
That Mr. Tolkien thinks so poorly of the films. As I have said, time and again, many of us who cherish the books and the story only arrived there thanks to Jackson and his films. Lord of the Rings is not mandatory, compulsory or "a must" read all around the world.

That said, I cannot say anything against Mr. Tolkien either... we have so much thanks to him. Such is life!
Visit Mexico from A to Z! Index to the whole series here.
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!



Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 13 2012, 1:28am


Views: 1352
Not likely
The 1969 agreements with UA were entered into by the publisher, George Allen & Unwin, LTD. at the time, and a company called Sassoon Trustee and Executor Corporation, LTD, which was acting on behalf of Tolkien. I don't think either would have been remotely influenced by such an opinion held by either Tolkien.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jul 13 2012, 1:38am


Views: 1348
His home seems like Crickhollow!
Really, in its reclusive location, surrounded by trees...at first I thought "Rivendell?" but then realized, that Christopher retired to a Crickhollow.

Got a chuckle out of his leaving Oxford. Is it true, the story about the key?

The weight of the responsibility of caring for his father's works must have been near-overwhelming at first, and we need to be immensely grateful for the effort he has devoted to the task...especially those of my age, who wept bitter tears when Tolkien passed on and who despaired that nothing further would be coming from Middle-earth.

His viewpoints regarding the movies are very understandable. I can see how his burden has affected his mindset, and I can't blame him. However, that in no way impinges my enjoyment of them.

Sometimes I wonder if his divorce and remarriage in the early '60s, which as I recall did upset his devout father, gave him a bit of guilt complex and made him even more defensive of the legacy he was sworn to protect - would you know?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 13 2012, 1:44am


Views: 1380
One very interesting aspect of this article that I have not seen commented on anywhere
Is that it purports to reveal details of the settlement of the Tolkien v. New Line lawsuit that I have not ever seen reported before. According to the article:

Quote
The producers paid 7.5 % of their profits to the Tolkien Estate, but the lawyer, who refuses to give a number, adds that "it is too early to say how much that will be in the future."
While this is reported as fact, I very much suspect that it is conjecture on the reporter's part, and wrong conjecture at that. The terms of the original agreements provide that 7.5% of the gross receipts after an "artificial payment level" defined as 2.6 times the final cost of the production. In other words, less 7.5% of the profits. Needless to say, it is extremely, extremely unlikely that New Line agreed to a settlement that was more than they would have to have paid if they lost the suit altogether.

I would guess the reporter just made that up.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


DavidDragonSlayer
The Shire


Jul 13 2012, 1:59am


Views: 1335
That's Interesting to Know!
I had no idea how the rights got handled. But I wonder if it explains some of the acrimony about things created based on the stories.


Nimloth9
The Shire


Jul 13 2012, 6:30am


Views: 1312
Completely sympathise with CT
I was 13 when I watched the movies, and right after I read the books, and went on to read The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and other works by JRRT. I thought the movies were awesome when I watched it, but after reading the books, I can't help but feeling disappointed at some of PJ's interpretations. Although I'm thankful for the movies as they introduced me to the Tolkien world, I completely sympathise with Christopher when he said they made it into an "action movie". It is also a little frustrating when some people who have watched the films think of it as a light fantasy action movie, and connect Tolkien with it. I just want to wave the book in their faces and say, "Hey, this is the real thing! Believe me, this is more than long battle scenes and a love triangle!"
Anyways, a big thank you to Christopher Tolkien for publishing The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin and HoME which I am happily reading through. I wish there was a way to tell him that there are lots of fans that appreciate his father's work as it is and his tremendous effort in publishing them.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Jul 13 2012, 6:56am


Views: 1385
So, bottom line, would Christopher have preferred that fewer people had read his father's work?
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


Views: 1350
Agree with this
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


Views: 1357
Regardless of one's opinion on the films...
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. Cool


"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


Views: 1323
I've know a few who tried to read LOTR after seeing the films.
And quit because it was "boring." Crazy


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


Views: 1360
well... the first half of FOTR could be considered a bit boring, don't you think?
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


Views: 1291
Yeah
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


Views: 1275
This. //
 
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit...


Marionette
Rohan


Jul 13 2012, 5:30pm


Views: 1287
Agree
In that point Christopher is right as well.


"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"
Queen


Marionette
Rohan


Jul 13 2012, 5:35pm


Views: 1308
Thats annoying
Yeah.

Theres a reality that the most of people dont read, or cant read Tolkien books. So they only have the wrong ideas the movies have.


"Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"
Queen


jschomburg
Rivendell

Jul 13 2012, 5:44pm


Views: 1315
Very well said...
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


Views: 1294
True
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


Views: 1300
But that's not new.
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. Wink

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. Tongue

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


Views: 1260
Out of curiosity
The version of "because" you use is "becoz."

Is that a reference to something?


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 13 2012, 8:16pm


Views: 1302
The first half of FOTR
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


Views: 1288
in your opinion... of course.
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


Views: 1274
You misunderstand me
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


Views: 1303
How do the literati phrase their disrespect for language arts?
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


Views: 1229
You are certainly right to...
...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


Views: 1241
Indeed
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


Views: 1264
There is much anti-intellectualism amongst intellectuals
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


Views: 1229
Is it only genre literature we're talking about?
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


Views: 1244
On literature
In Reply To
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 trees
in 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


Views: 1246
I think Christopher is being a little harsh..
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


Views: 1227
No-one here can speak for Christopher -
- 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


Views: 1191
I fail to see your point
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.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 14 2012, 6:09pm


Views: 1549
I conflated two separate phenomena
My apologies for that.

But generally speaking, the attitudes toward the "origins of language" amongst most of the so-called respectable literati, is strikingly similar to their attitudes towards so-called "genre fiction." It is irrelevant, passe, and regressive to them. It is not forward-thinking, etc, etc. There are indeed exceptions, of course. Joyce and Rushdie and Eco (as mentioned in this thread) have a very healthy respect for language - particularly Eco. But any author who obsesses about the roots of language, and comes at literature with a philological bias, is often deemed quite suspect.

The interesting this is that I, for the most part, dislike most genre fiction. My literary tastes are often very consistent with many in the literati. But I recognize excellent genre fiction when I see it, and Tolkien is certainly at the very top of that heap. In fact, I don't think of Tolkien's work as "genre" fiction. I think of his works as literature. Literature that speaks, on an incredibly profound level, about the human condition.

Problem is, most members of the literati that I know (a dubious membership though it is) insist that Tolkien, and all fantasy and science fiction, cannot possibly speak to the human condition. It cannot because it isn't "real," and it isn't primarily concerned with people, but rather, far-fetched ideas and pop philosophies. There is a very similar reason behind their disdain for the language arts.

The language arts, to many of them, do not concern themselves with "the human condition" and are therefore irrelevant to literature.

I dispute them strongly on this point. The origins of, and progress of, language can tell us very much about the human condition - how humans think, feel, communicate, believe and progress. It is a mistake to divorce linguistics and philology from literature.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 14 2012, 6:13pm)


Finrod
Rohan


Jul 14 2012, 6:33pm


Views: 1541
Echo
In Reply To
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.
I don’t know what “accepted into the ‘consensus’ ” means.

My point is that not every author is content with making his novel fit into the popular/populist but narrow expectations of pulp adventure novels. The so-called archaism (which is overstated) is needed to give a sense of place.

If they couldn’t handle Tolkien, I’m sure they couldn’t handle Eco. The impatient demands doe immediate, shallow gratification amongst the self-entitled flitterati is so appalling that it makes even severe ADHD cases appear patient and studious. If it doesn’t fit into their ephemeral sound-bite world, they aren’t interested.

“Too boring! Next,” they all cry.

Whatever. Tolkien is not for them, and neither is Eco.

Then again, at least one can look up the Latin, unlike the Sindarin or Quenya.

Although many of us can read it, my understanding was that the only fluent speakers of Latin are in the Vatican; pleased to meet you, monsignor.

The best aide to those of lesser scholarship for reading The Name of the Rose is The Key to The Name of the Rose: Including Translations of All Non-English Passages from Ann Arbor Paperbacks. I had begun writing such a thing myself to help my own sublettered friends when I chanced upon the completed key. Saved me a lot of work.

All jousting and jesting aside, I do recommend the Eco to you. It really is a treat.
…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 trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311


(This post was edited by Finrod on Jul 14 2012, 6:36pm)


squire
Half-elven


Jul 14 2012, 8:06pm


Views: 1563
Well, there's a clue
"Eco gets a pass because he has been accepted into the 'consensus.'"

That statement is at the core of my puzzlement, and shouldn't be thrown off so lightly with a "just because". Why have Eco's highly-intellectual detective thrillers been "accepted" by this undefined academy of anti-intellectual intellectuals whose tastes we are trying to understand? Why is The Lord of the Rings not in the same class as The Name of the Rose? To me, either both are sincere and fluent efforts to to open up the thought-process and mytho-cultural outlook of a long-past European era to the perceptive tastes of a well-educated modern reader, using the conventions of an middle-brow adventure genre, or both are pretentious junk.

Specialized scholars like Tom Shippey, Michael Drout, and Brian Rosebury argue as well as they can for Tolkien's side. Does anyone on the "anti" side ever actually explain the standards set and reasoning process that underlies this seemingly-arbitrary exclusion and inclusion? These are, after all, highly intelligent and educated people no matter how much we may disagree with them.


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.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 14 2012, 8:23pm


Views: 1546
Simply because
The Lord of the Rings is, to them, not literary fantasy (or magical realism, which is acceptable). Eco's fantasy, though not accepted by the entire literary establishment, is seen to be appropriately modern. He is seen as someone who is interested in the human condition, including the psychological aspects of it.

Tolkien is seen as a medievalist (rightly), and is therefore dismissed as a relic of the past who has nothing to say about modern humans. Someone that is only interested in creating stories for their own sake, and not to illuminate the human questions that the literati have designated as "serious." They dismiss the characters as shallow and non-psychological, and therefore throw the whole thing out (and most of them have barely even read any of it - they have just listened to other people denounce it).

And lastly, on a purely superficial level, they see little people, elves, dwarves, dragons, and archaic exclamations, etc., and simply refuse to even consider that it is serious.

The lit-lang thing is related. Many in the lit camp see lang as a science, not an art form. The lits think langs can't say anything interesting about the human condition, and so they dismiss it as irrelevant.

And yes, this is an undefined "they" because there is no membership-based organization that defines it. It is simply a mass of educated literary professionals and academics that populate universities and prestigious journals and publications, that set the tone. It is a truly powerful educational force.

But I don't think the anti-intellectualism aimed at Tolkien is necessarily deliberate. It is simply a time-saver. Most in this literary establishment do not find it necessary, or worth their time. Tolkien literary scholarship is not, to them a force to be reckoned with, and it is therefore fruitless (and beneath their station) to take it seriously. Hence, dismissiveness.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 14 2012, 8:30pm)


Beutlin
Rivendell

Jul 14 2012, 9:14pm


Views: 1565
I would not compare "The Lord of the Rings" with "The Name of the Rose".
Tolkien was not a postmodern writer.

You are certainly right when you say that several critics of Tolkien have not even read his works. Indeed, there is a concensus among many literary critics that the LOTR is just romantic kitsch. Just like you said, they dismiss the story for its lack of "modern" themes and shallow characters. There are other reasons too, that have been brought forward to criticize Tolkien (such as sexism, racism).

I end with three quotes (just like in an older post of mine):

"The twentieth century will perhaps be remembered as a golden age for epic and fantastic literature, a time when the morbid fog of the flaccid avant-garde was dissipated. It has already allowed the emergence of Howard, Lovecraft and Tolkien. Three radically different universes. Three pillars of a dream literature, as much scorned by the critics as it was enjoyed by the public. This is of no importance. Criticism always ultimately recognizes its mistakes; or, more precisely, the critics ultimately die and are replaced by others."
Michel Houellebecq

"I would suggest that Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films surpass Tolkien's originals, because, to be blunt, Jackson makes films better than Tolkien writes; Jackson's cinematic style, sweeping, lyrical, by turns intimate and epic, is greatly preferable to Tolkien's prose style, which veers alarmingly between windbaggery, archness, pomposity, and achieves something like humanity, and ordinary English, only in the parts about hobbits, the little people who are our representatives in the saga to a far greater degree than its grandly heroic (or snivellingly crooked) men."
Salman Rushdie

I was introduced to the Tolkien trilogy—"The Fellowship of the Ring," "The Two Towers," "The Return of the King"—and its prequel, "The Hobbit," by a history teacher when I was 15, the perfect age at which to read Tolkien. I plunged into the world of Middle-earth with a will, even acquiring the rudiments of Elvish and the ability to recite the dread inscription on the Ring of Power in the dark tongue of Mordor. I believe that the secret of the trilogy's enduring success lies in Tolkien's infinitely detailed creation of the world it inhabits—there is so much "back story" that is only hinted at, so much to do with the history and legends and religions of dwarves, elves and men, that the world we are given becomes almost too rich with allusion to that submerged information. And then, of course, there is one genuinely immortal character, a greater creation than Gandalf the Grey or the Lord of the Rings himself: that is to say, Gollum.
The above
Ceterum censeo montem artis magicae atrae esse delendum.


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 14 2012, 10:01pm


Views: 1509
On Lucas and Star Wars
In Reply To
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).
What do you mean by this? I know Lucas gives people a lot of freedom to create their own part of his world. What should he learn exactly?


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 14 2012, 10:05pm


Views: 1559
Bad vibes from Christoper Tolkien
In Reply To
That statement seems completely out of touch, considering the wide appeal these films had. Though it's not like I'm entirely surprised. I admire Christopher a great deal for the work he's done regarding his father's writings, but it's really a shame he's so close minded regarding the films, adaptation, etc.
Sadly, I agree. I don't think his father would be like this. After all, J.R.R. Tolkien was the one who sold the film rights in the first place. And it's a good thing he did because I can't see Christopher Tolkien doing it.

Tolkien is all about subcreating, right? Is Christoper against that? I don't know... I rescpect Christoper Tolkien a lot, especially for editing The Silmarillion, but he needs to lighten up.

In Reply To
Also, Christopher is 87. I cannot imagine any of my grandparents at the age of 87 watching and enjoying LOTR. My grandmother, who was about that age, saw a brief bit of the Balrog confrontation on a cousin's new home theater setup, and she was aghast. This was not what her generation considered entertainment. We have a generational culture gap here along with all the other factors. I do not think a movie could be made which would appeal to general audiences at this time and Christopher Tolkien.
.
 Oh my Eru, if the film was made to appeal to people who grew up in the 30s and 40s it would be AWFUL! Laugh


(This post was edited by Jeremy on Jul 14 2012, 10:13pm)


Finrod
Rohan


Jul 14 2012, 10:38pm


Views: 1530
inappropriate age-bashing
In Reply To
Oh my Eru, if the film was made to appeal to people who grew up in the 30s and 40s it would be AWFUL! [hah hah hee hee hoo hoo]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Aren’t you just needlessly and unkindly bashing on old people?

The tale of The Hobbit was written for people who grew up in that time, and earlier, and it quite provably works just fine to appeal to today’s generation as well.

If it is possible to make a book with staying power, why should it be impossible to make a motion picture with the same property?

Have you watched Lawrence of Arabia lately? Fifty years old if it’s a day. Horrible film, isn’t it? Or how about The Wizard of Oz? That one’s seventy years old. Dreadful stuff! Must be because they were made by those old fuddy-daddies for other old fuddy-daddies.

Not.

Children these days. Hmph!
…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 trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 14 2012, 10:52pm


Views: 1557
wuh?
In Reply To
In Reply To
Oh my Eru, if the film was made to appeal to people who grew up in the 30s and 40s it would be AWFUL! [hah hah hee hee hoo hoo]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Aren’t you just needlessly and unkindly bashing on old people?

The tale of The Hobbit was written for people who grew up in that time, and earlier, and it quite provably works just fine to appeal to today’s generation as well.

If it is possible to make a book with staying power, why should it be impossible to make a motion picture with the same property?

Have you watched Lawrence of Arabia lately? Fifty years old if it’s a day. Horrible film, isn’t it? Or how about The Wizard of Oz? That one’s seventy years old. Dreadful stuff! Must be because they were made by those old fuddy-daddies for other old fuddy-daddies.

Not.

Children these days. Hmph!
What do you think Jackson should have changed so the movies could appeal to older people?

I don't know if you're seriously implying that he should have made it more like a 40s movie even though we are in the 00s/10s? Why would he do that and how would that work?

There are older adaptations of LotR and The Hobbit. They are not good.

Edit: By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that we're saying older people might not like action in a movie that is based on a children's book? The Hobbit wasn't even written for older people!


(This post was edited by Jeremy on Jul 14 2012, 10:56pm)


Finrod
Rohan


Jul 15 2012, 4:01am


Views: 1594
Ageism
You said making a film that would appeal to people who grew up in the 30s and 40s would be awful.

That’s an awfully mean statement.

Retired people are allowed to enjoy films, too, you know.
…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 trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 15 2012, 5:52am


Views: 1484
I don't know about the 40s...
But a set of Lord of the Rings films similar in style to the 1962 Lawrence of Arabia, could be both amazing and timeless.


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Jul 15 2012, 7:26am


Views: 1468
That's what I was trying to say above.
In Reply To
By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that we're saying older people might not like action in a movie that is based on a children's book? The Hobbit wasn't even written for older people!
These books were originally written for young people. The Hobbit for kids, LotR for older young people. They do include a lot of action and suspense. Fortunately, they were written with enough depth that they appeal to people of all ages. The movies, though a more "popular" entertainment (after all, they had to produce a return on investment), have brought many people into an appreciation of Tolkien's work. We have a number of folks here who were movie-firsters and became dedicated Tolkien book fans, including several regulars in the Reading Room.

The books are like good classical music, which is gorgeous on first hearing, but the more you listen the more nuances there are to hear. A lot of movies have incorporated classical music as themes, and have served to introduce people to these works.

Jackson's movies are good movies, and to the extent they introduced a lot of people to the deeper books, they shouldn't be scorned.




Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 15 2012, 8:21am


Views: 1488
Nope, I still disagree.
in reply to -

>These books were originally written for young people. The Hobbit for kids, LotR for older young people.<

Tolkien told the story of the hobbit to his children, and was persuaded to finish it in book form and have it published. It is a children's story which can be enjoyed by people of all ages, as CS Lewis said in one of his two newspaper reviews of the book. In a paper entitled 'On Three Ways of Writing for Children', Lewis said that in his opinion a children's story which can only be enjoyed by children is a bad children's story. The good ones last.

As I said in my reply to your earlier post, Tolkien did not have an age range in mind when he wrote LotR. That may be the way things are done these days (I don't know); but it's not the way Tolkien wrote, or thought. Judging by his remarks in some of his letters, I'd say he was surprised and delighted (and sometimes baffled) by the range and scope of his readership. People of all ranges and backgrounds would write to him.

I think saying things like this -

>These books were originally written for young people. The Hobbit for kids, LotR for older young people.<

- is to misrepresent Tolkien. He didn't write with an audience in mind; he wrote stories and poems because he liked 'em!

* See the Foreword; the bit about an author 'trying his hand at a really long story'.
.








(This post was edited by geordie on Jul 15 2012, 8:24am)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 15 2012, 8:24am


Views: 1494
Strange as it may seem...
People who grew up in the 30s and 40s (or the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 1830s, 1840s and so on and so on) are, were, all just people. No different from you - it's only the externals that change. I grew up through two of the decades in that list - not telling you which Wink - and I bet I like the films every bit as much as you do and look forward to the new ones just as much (though I may enjoy different things in them. Then again, I may not, who's to say.)

Try not to put people in boxes. Just because someone looks older, it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't like or understand the things you do.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 15 2012, 8:30am


Views: 1495
yers...
- a lot of times in internet discussions, we see well-meaning folk trying to make allowances for JRR (and now, CT I suppose) - by saying 'Well, he was living in different times...' - and that is the capper; no further argument (or thought) required.

Well, excuse me! I happen to have been alive for several decades when Tolkien Sr. was alive; and as for Christopher - his 'times' are very much our own, as he's still with us.

What was that CS Lewis said about 'Chronological Snobbery'?


sador
Half-elven


Jul 15 2012, 10:24am


Views: 1462
Answering in general, but using your excellent post as a platform.
Quote
It's my observation that one who has inherited a duty to protect someone else's work, name, or reputation is often even more zealous than the person himself would have been.
Oh yes! I have been to some extent involved with no less than four such "guardians" of great men's work - two dead, one old and with bad eyesight, and a fourth too bust to be bothered with the nitty-gritty details - and they are an intractable bunch! Comparing to them, Christopher Tolkien is both generous and open-minded, however tough and unreasonable he might seem to people who do not consider his position.


Quote
In fact, it's hard not to be, since one worries more over being too slack than too careful,
Right. It's easy for me as an outsider to point out a mistake, or disagree; but then it's only my opinion. If a custodian of the author's work accepts my correction, he is guilty of a grave breach of trust. Even if the suggestion works better in general, one can never be sure the author would have accepted it - he might have agreed with the objection, but proceeded in a completely different direction. There is hardly such a thing as too careful in this position.
Regarding the four great men in my previous comment - regarding two at least, I have it on excellent authority that they were very open to criticism, and didn't want to be accepted blindly. But the "guardians" have neither confidence or authority to act for themselves. Consider the Valar laying down the government of the world when Ar-Pharazon's fleet approached the Undying Lands.


Quote
a worry which is echoed in Christopher's guilt over his personal additions to the published Silmarillion.
I must say, having recently re-read The Book of Lost Tales, that I found absolutely no indication of doubt of Christopher's regarding the published Silmarillion. In fact, in Unfinsihed Tales he silently made a couple of corrections to the texts, assuming that the decisions he (and to an unknown extent, Guy Kay) made where both correct and final.
This story of the dream is the first indication I know of that the doubts rose before publishing The Lost Road, one or two asides in which imply some dissatisfaction. It is fascinating - but I need to know far more about both JRRT and Christopher than I am likely to ever know, to make something out of it.


Quote
But in a way, it may be even harder on Christopher trying to speak for him than it would have been for him to speak for himself.
Yes, and once the guilt you've mentioned above arose, it also gnaws at him. He needs to assauge the nagging doubt to what extent he is better than Saul Zaentz.


Quote
In any case, trying to contain something that has made its way into popular culture is impossible.
I agree.


Quote
It really is best that he ignores it because there is really nothing he can do about it.
I'm not sure about that. The purist voice should be heard - and I mean a really purist voice, one who is concerned about the significance of Frodo's travail than about the changes to Faramir's storyline.


Quote
Also, Christopher is 87. I cannot imagine any of my grandparents at the age of 87 watching and enjoying LOTR.
It's more than that. At this age one is more preoccupied with the bigger questions of life and death, religion and disbelief, spirituality and materialistic despair.
When Christopher himself was younger, his tastes were different - I can't imagine him at present clamouring for the retention of the comic Odo Bolger! (The Return of the Shadow, p. 299)


Quote
My grandmother, who was about that age, saw a brief bit of the Balrog confrontation on a cousin's new home theater setup, and she was aghast. This was not what her generation considered entertainment.
Was Flash Gordon that much better?
I think it's a matter of an age gap. I also expect (if I ever get to that age) to be more interested in the hoarded gold of wisdom and religion than in the food and cheer of entertainment.


Quote
We have a generational culture gap here along with all the other factors.
Another point is that printed literature is a receding (not to say dying) world. People don't just get to read thousand-page long books for the fun of it.
I appreciate that the essence of Tolkien's work is far deeper than the mere thrill, and even the fantasy; but "Consolation, Recovery and Escape" are different for different people, in different walks of life.
If a teenager today enjoys Jackson's movies and gets to buy the books for recapturing the cinematic fun, there is a chance that years from now s/he will turn to them for the consolation, recovery and escape relevant to her/his future needs and burdens.

For instance, War and Peace is another great book to reflect upon. How many teenagers know it well enough to do so?


Quote
I do not think a movie could be made which would appeal to general audiences at this time and Christopher Tolkien.
 Of course not.
And there is another thing - these books are Christopher's present mode of communication with his deceased father. He is no "general audience", but a uniquely private one. And any change or flaw in detail or tone would acutely disturb this reaching out beyond the grave.
I honestly don't think he ever considered watching these films.


Quote
In a purely speculative vein, I would love to be a fly on the wall for a conversation between Christopher Tolkien and Christopher Lee about the films. Being two gentlemen of the same generation but in very different positions regarding the modern adaptation, that would surely be a conversation worth hearing.
I'm not entirely sure. They have been on different wavelengths for decades by now.
"I personally still think of The Hobbit as a brilliant story aimed specifically at older children, with its own theme about growing up, that has little to do with the epic of the Ring that followed it."
- squire.



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for An Unexpected Party!


squire
Half-elven


Jul 15 2012, 1:40pm


Views: 1488
Now that's what I call the *beginnings* of a critical approach that we can talk about
Tolkien's prose style, ... veers alarmingly between windbaggery, archness, pomposity, and achieves something like humanity, and ordinary English, only in the parts about hobbits, the little people who are our representatives in the saga to a far greater degree than its grandly heroic (or snivellingly crooked) men."- Salman Rushdie

Now there's some criticism we can get our teeth into. I would love to help Rushdie be more specific with some examples of the poor prose he so gleefully scants. Strictly, I guess, we would have to restrict ourselves to the narrator's prose, since any author is justified in making his characters into windbags, snobs, and buffoons. Although perhaps I'm misreading - perhaps Rushdie is saying that Tolkien tried to write noble heroes, endearing protagonists, and threatening villains, and with his surpassingly trite style produced only a slobbering rank of fools instead. Well, we would want to avoid the "parts about hobbits", of which Rushdie approves.

For a start, I would guess that Rushdie dislikes the written dialogue of: Elrond, Strider/Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel, Eomer, Theoden, Saruman, Wormtongue, Denethor, Eowyn and the like. I also wonder if he doesn't find Tolkien's descriptions of the cities, fortresses, battles, and past history of Middle-earth "alarmingly" overblown and lacking in "humanity". I can't tell if he includes in this indictment Tolkien's nature-writing: the rich and loving descriptions of the landforms, waterways, weather, and passage of time that so fill in my sense of Middle-earth as a living, breathing world. Tolkien's vocabulary alone in these passages may disqualify him from meeting Rushdie's demand for "ordinary English" in the writing of the story. I also don't know if Rushdie includes in his indictment those Men who are to my mind neither heroic nor crooked: Bombadil, Butterbur, Beregond, and Ghan-buri-ghan, for instance; not to mention those hobbits who are demonstrably windbags like the Gaffer, Bilbo, and Farmer Maggot.

I'm also guessing that Rushdie is among those whom Shelob's Appetite has identified as disliking the story once it reaches Rivendell, when the hobbits are absorbed into the longer quest for Mt. Doom and the War of the Ring that entangles it. Interestingly, as I read History of Middle-earth, it was between Rivendell and Moria that Tolkien himself recognized that his story was outgrowing the "New Hobbit" garments he originally dressed it in. He later went back and rewrote much of the first book (hobbits, hobbits, hobbits!) to adjust it to the darker and more epic tone that the story as a whole assumed in the subsequent years of writing.

In fact, as Rushdie acknowledges, the story became a "saga"; and surely a saga, or perhaps "romance" as Tolkien fancied it, must try for the "grandly heroic", which Rushdie grants that he achieved. Since he doesn't elaborate, it seems hard to say what prose style Rushdie thinks a modern saga should be written in - especially the parts without the imaginary miniature humans.



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.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 15 2012, 2:07pm


Views: 1467
There is only sense that I would consider LOTR written for a young adult
Generally speaking, I completely agree with what you say. Certainly when LOTR was begun it was intended for the same audience that The Hobbit was written for, but that changed rather rapidly as the story "grew in the telling" and was more and more subsumed by the older legends. However there is one sense in which I think it could be said that it was written for a young adult. However, I am referring to a specific young adult, not young adults in general. I am speaking, of course, about Christopher Tolkien, who was a young man serving in the RAF in South Africa during the writing of much of the book, and (along with CSL and the Inklings) was the primary reader of the material, which his father sent to him in serial form as it was written. Even then, the material was not written "for" Christopher (in the way that The Hobbit could be said to have been written for him and his siblings in an earlier time), but I think it can be said that Tolkien valued his opinion about it above all others (with possible exception of Jack Lewis). But that had much more to do with who Christopher was/is and the connection that father and son had than Christopher's particular age at the time.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 15 2012, 9:35pm


Views: 1412
Clarification
In Reply To
People who grew up in the 30s and 40s (or the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 1830s, 1840s and so on and so on) are, were, all just people. No different from you - it's only the externals that change. I grew up through two of the decades in that list - not telling you which Wink - and I bet I like the films every bit as much as you do and look forward to the new ones just as much (though I may enjoy different things in them. Then again, I may not, who's to say.)

Try not to put people in boxes. Just because someone looks older, it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't like or understand the things you do.
I don't think what I said was "mean" like Finrod said it was. But I certainly think it would be a bad idea to sacrifice the appeal to a younger audience by removing action from the films in order to appeal to an older audience. I enjoyed the action in the films and it's perfectly normal for a movie to be made for younger people. Of course, this isn't any different than what Tolkien was thinking when he wrote the two books, correct?

I was responding to the discussion about Christoper Tolkien not liking all the action in the films. It was said by others in this thread that his generation doesn't enjoy action movies as much as younger generations (which is not true for everyone, of course). Perhaps Finrod Edennil, Friend-of-Men can forgive this man for the misunderstanding. Laugh But I thought Nóm himself would have shown more wisdom and not be so quick to judge and mock me!


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 15 2012, 10:27pm


Views: 1418
So... you're saying that Tolkien put action in the books...
..to appeal to younger people? I don't think that is correct. It's true that The Hobbit began life as a story told to his children but in the act of writing it down even that was drawn towards his earlier and deeper mythology. And if you're claiming that Lord of the Rings was written to appeal to any particular age group then I would dispute that. It may have started out as a sequel, written at the publisher's request, but in the end I'd say he wrote to please himself, primarily, (most writers do) and he was far from being a young man at the time. As for the book's appeal, that crosses the generations.

In the article linked at the start of this thread Christopher Tolkien is quoted as describing Peter Jackson's films as action films for people aged 15 to 25. He doesn't like them, that's no secret, but you assume that it's because of his age that he doesn't like them? I think his reasons are quite different; if he were 50 years younger I doubt that he'd like the films any better than he does now.

As for your first remark, well, I don't know - just take a quiet look at it:

Quote
Oh my Eru, if the film was made to appeal to people who grew up in the 30s and 40s it would be AWFUL! Laugh
Weren't you laughing at the idea of a film made to appeal to people who are now in their 70s and 80s? And by extension laughing at what you perceive to be the tastes of people that age, on the assumption that everyone here would agree and laugh along with you. Seems to me you were the one doing the mocking, perhaps without meaning to. At very least, it wasn't the most sensitive of comments. After all, the films even had actors in who grew up in the 30s and 40s, and they seemed to like them well enough.


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 15 2012, 10:47pm


Views: 1431
sigh...
Others here brought up a "generation gap," which I was responding to. Someone also mentioned that their grandmother watched one of the films and didn't like it.

I was talking about those types of people (including Christopher Tolkien). If the films were hypothetically changed to appeal to them, I would be upset because I like the action in the films. I also don't think the pace of the films should be slower, as movies were then.

I guess some people think Laugh means you're laughing at others? A bit judgmental for a lighthearted post. If my post was offensive, then I guess more serious posts about "generation gaps" should be offensive as well? We all know 80 year olds can enjoy "action movies", but we weren't talking about that. What I was saying was that I didn't want it to be changed to appeal to a generation that others here said were over a "generation gap." If that's "mean," blame them too!


(This post was edited by Jeremy on Jul 15 2012, 10:55pm)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Jul 15 2012, 11:37pm


Views: 1395
Fair enough...
Your probably right, the most apt comparison would be the freedom he gives to Expanded Universe writers. I was speaking more to his stance on the Special Editions vs. Theatrical Editions (being the movies that people fell in love with). What I was getting at is the fact that once you release a work out into the world, it becomes more than your own personal work. It belongs to the public consciousness, and you can't always expect to control the way fans will receive/interpret it.


"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


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 16 2012, 3:45am


Views: 1472
A less breakneck pace would have been preferable to me
As would some time shaved off the hours and hours of battle (Helm's Deep was egregiously long, particularly as it was a minor plot point in the books).

And I'm only in my 40s.


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 16 2012, 5:59am


Views: 1408
Speaking of putting people in boxes
(just bouncing off your post dormouse, not intended as a reply just to you)

The idea of writing for specific age groups is relatively new one, mostly a construct of marketers. For a few hundred years books were simply written with no (overtly) stated age group in mind. Over the years certain titles came to be regarded as Children's Literature not because they were written for children, rather because there was agreement among readers that they were appropriate (often instructive) for children to read.


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Jul 16 2012, 7:43am


Views: 1432
This is a very important testimony.
It's my experience that there are a lot of people here just like you, and a lot more in other Tolkien sites, and probably still more who had the same experience of being introduced to the books by the movies and haven't shared their experience online.

I think people who equate enjoying the movies with terminal shallowness are being somewhat elitist. A post up-thread suggested that a lot of people who bought the books because of the movies were put off and tossed them unread -- another elitist assumption. Maybe some did, many did not.

For myself, I read the books when they came out but did not become a serious fan. The movies revived my interest, and I went back to the books and discovered new depths and delights, and read many of the things you list and a few others.

Sure, the movies are shallower than the books. They're movies. For a movie to have depth, it must restrict scope. Jackson took a different approach. For all the things I find irritating in the movies (and there are many) there are many other moments that are just sublime. I am grateful for them, and not ashamed to say so.




Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'

(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Jul 16 2012, 7:44am)


Magpie
Immortal


Jul 16 2012, 1:21pm


Views: 1349
*what she said*
I could have written that post myself, Elizabeth. I completely agree with you.

LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 16 2012, 3:49pm


Views: 1338
We got into this a bit
last month on Hobbit. See this and related posts.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 16 2012, 3:50pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 16 2012, 3:58pm


Views: 1318
I have something that may speak to your question...
In Reply To
[So... you're saying that Tolkien put action in the books...] to appeal to younger people? I don't think that is correct.
 Edgar Rice Burroughs was an American contemporary of Tolkien, and other than also being a writer, was probably as different from the professor as coult be. However, his action-packed yarns of Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, Carson of Venus, etc. weren't written to appeal to youngsters or young adults, but to tired middle-aged businessmen and blue-collar workers who just wanted to come home and escape for a while into another world. I'm not saying that Tokien necessarily shared that goal, only that he similarly wasn't targeting any specific audience (other than himself?).
"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 16 2012, 6:55pm


Views: 1363
It's a good example...
.. and true to the way the process works, I think. Most writers write the kind of things they themselves would want to read. In the first instance, sitting alone with pencil and paper, typewriter or computer screen, that's the only yardstick a writer has. His or her own interest in the story and enjoyment of it. If you as writer don't enjoy it then it's unlikely that anyone else is going to!


Lissuin
Valinor


Jul 16 2012, 8:18pm


Views: 1322
Great thread from all, and Elizabeth wraps it up for me.
Quote
"Sure, the movies are shallower than the books. They're movies. For a movie to have depth, it must restrict scope. Jackson took a different approach. For all the things I find irritating in the movies (and there are many) there are many other moments that are just sublime. I am grateful for them, and not ashamed to say so."


I refused to see a film version of Fellowship for a month after it was released. Friends and reviews finally convinced me it was safe. By then the theatre was nearly empty, and I had the music, the sweeping landscapes, and the beautifully paced tale of the journey in an otherwise quiet room; my own world, in effect, rather like reading a book out of doors by a babbling brook with rustling leaves and bird song overhead. And in the privacy of that empty theatre, I cried at the humanity in Tolkien's story expressed so well through Tolkien's own words, but also in the words of the script writers and from the faces and in the voices of that group of actors, in some truly sublime moments. The next two films accomplished the same.

I love reading Shakespeare alone in a quiet place, but I also love sitting in a darkened theatre where those stories are recreated in voice and color and costume. Every production is different, and I really don't like every interpretation or staging, but the story still moves me, and I see something new every time.

A three-hour film or a live performance is not the equivalent of a private reading experience where we each build our own landscapes and relationships with the story. They are simply another means of opening us to new interpretations of what it means to be a human in the world.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 16 2012, 10:30pm


Views: 1298
Rushdie's quote
Where he identifies a little with the hobbit bits, but denounces the rest, is exactly the kind of criticism I described in those earlier posts. Out of curiosity, why was it not relevant then?


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 17 2012, 12:53am


Views: 1296
I agree!
In Reply To
It's my experience that there are a lot of people here just like you, and a lot more in other Tolkien sites, and probably still more who had the same experience of being introduced to the books by the movies and haven't shared their experience online.

I think people who equate enjoying the movies with terminal shallowness are being somewhat elitist. A post up-thread suggested that a lot of people who bought the books because of the movies were put off and tossed them unread -- another elitist assumption. Maybe some did, many did not.

For myself, I read the books when they came out but did not become a serious fan. The movies revived my interest, and I went back to the books and discovered new depths and delights, and read many of the things you list and a few others.

Sure, the movies are shallower than the books. They're movies. For a movie to have depth, it must restrict scope. Jackson took a different approach. For all the things I find irritating in the movies (and there are many) there are many other moments that are just sublime. I am grateful for them, and not ashamed to say so.
Someone had to say it! I feel like there are a lot of "elitists" in the Tolkien communities online. The films were EXTREMELY popular, so some people who found Tolkien before the "mainstream" act as if they are better than people who were involved with the production of the films or even just fans of the films! When Peter Jackson said Philippa Boyens is the biggest Tolkien geek, everyone started trying to prove how they are better than her! I don't think this is unique to Tolkien fans though. If someone is talking about a movie that was based on a book there is always someone who must interject that, "the book was better," just to prove that they are more serious fans. I think this even happens when the movie is better than the book! I never understood how a movie and a book could be compared though.

Edit: By the way, over a third of LotR sales were sold after the release of the films. I read sales of the book increased by 1000% in the UK.


(This post was edited by Jeremy on Jul 17 2012, 12:59am)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 17 2012, 5:38am


Views: 1269
This is true, but the problem is on both sides
Yes, there are elitists in the Tolkien communities online.

However, there is also the opposite extreme of people who insist that those who adore the books are pseudo-intellectual bores that just "don't get it," and those who aren't keen on the films must have something wrong with their heads.

Those sorts of people tend to make the elitists even more elitist, and so round the vicious circle we go...

I mean, just earlier you openly mocked the tastes of senior citizens, and what they might want out of a LOTR film! That kind of comment doesn't help the elitists mellow out and enjoy the books.

What both camps could learn is a bit of "live and let live." Don't criticize people for liking the films, and don't criticize people for not liking the films. These are both quite legitimate points of view...

I think the LOTR films, apart from a few really great scenes (which I tend to watch often), are very sub par. For me, almost unwatchable.

Will you let me have that opinion without mocking it?


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 17 2012, 5:39am)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jul 17 2012, 2:03pm


Views: 1260
Well said
I know quite a few extremely wonderful people who are among the most knowledgable people I know about Tolkien who simply avoid discussions about the films because they get treated so disrespectfully when they express their opinions. I think that is unfortunate.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


geordie
Tol Eressea

Jul 17 2012, 7:17pm


Views: 1249
Me too
- I also have a lot of friends who know more about Tolkien than I do, who don't discuss the movies. I don't blame them - it's a bit like (to paraphrase Pratchett) 'entering an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine'.

Wink


(This post was edited by geordie on Jul 17 2012, 7:19pm)


Magpie
Immortal


Jul 17 2012, 9:44pm


Views: 1269
If you get two groups representing two sides of an opinion in a room...
there will always be those in each group who behave badly.

So, when anyone *not* behaving badly tries to calm the waters, each side can say "but they* said nasty things about me".

*they = the other side - not the few people who actually behaved badly.

Those behaving badly won't own up to their behavior ... or are actually proud of it and won't change.**

Too many people not behaving badly chose to blame the other side in total for the actions of the few.

It's seems to be an entrenched way of thinking and acting that never moves and never gets better.

I've basically given up thinking that I can have a conversation with anyone I don't agree with that is based on what that person said and what I said. Either a badly behaving person will crash the conversation or someone is holding a grudge against a whole group of people based on what a few bad apples did.

I have a few friends who I can still converse with without this dynamic coming into play. I even disagree with them on things. But they are able to carry on a conversation without blaming me for the action of every person who ever held a similar opinion as mine. And they are able to place my opinion within the context of what I think about a lot of things... and how I behave in general. And I do the same with them. Disagreements happen with civility and respect.

But mostly... on the internet and in other areas of life... effective communication is broken. It's sad, really.



**beside the badly behaving people who won't admit to behaving badly (or understand how it is 'bad)... and the badly behaving people who are proud of their behavior... there is actually a third group: the person who behaves badly with the intention of riling people up but who don't care at all about the opinion they are spouting. This person doesn't like Star Wars but will get on a LOTR board and pretend that they are Star Wars fans who think LOTR is tripe. They trash talk it so that LOTR fans will get riled up and feel that 'those Star Wars fans are so mean'. That same person is just as likely to get on the Star Wars board, pretend to be a LOTR fan and do the same. I think of it as them earning points. If badly behaving person X can get each side of an opinion sniping at each other... they have earned a point. I'm convinced they find places to compare their points with each other. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those points were earned on these boards.

LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide

(This post was edited by Magpie on Jul 17 2012, 9:44pm)


Radhruin
Rohan


Jul 18 2012, 5:30am


Views: 1254
Oh, I like this
I have read this thread with great interest and I think you have made a very good point. I believe that writing "to" a specific audience is not ideal, but very popular current literature seems to be written that way. In my opinion, authors are better served by writing what inspires them, as opposed to writing to please a specific audience. The audience should respond to the literature, not the other way around.


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 18 2012, 11:28pm


Views: 1221
You didn't even read my posts- only took my words out of context
 


Bombadil
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:30pm


Views: 1210
Tommy Tuneful & G-Girl enjoy the Simple..
Sentences in life.

"The flexibility of these books explains their success,"

remarks Vincent Ferré.

"It is an oeuvre that creates a world,
where readers can enter and become
actors in their own turn."

TB&G


Bombadil
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:12pm


Views: 1180
How is this Idea to solve the Riddle of CRT & SirPJ?
After a gilded invitation is send
and accepted to the South of France.
.
Three " Stretched. ...Limousines" arrive.

CHRIS and wife join PJ&Fran in one.
PHILLIPA with husband with Adam &Priscilla Tolkien in another.
THIRD with John H & Alan L with otherof thier many Grandchildren.

Drive to the Huge Theatre in Cannes..and this fair party has the Theatre
All to themselves for LotR 1,2,3!.

Chris is handed a Remote allowing him to Stop the Movies at anytime for Discussion.
THEN
if he can live long enough repeat this
for TH1,2,3!
Peace is restored and Chris can sail into the West and canTell

his Father
of Tales of Astonishment!

Bomby


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 18 2012, 6:35pm


Views: 1148
I see your heart is in the right place
Smile -- but I think Christopher's a bit busy right now, getting the latest edition of his father's works through the press; ie, JRR tolkien's 'The Fall of Arthur'.

.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 8:05pm


Views: 1218
Thang you very Bunch..
You are one of
My Heros Here..
your Dedication
and extensive Library
would be..
"Something
you don't..
See everyday"..

Maybe CRT needs
a Holiday &
Sees Mountains
of FilmWork?

THEN go Back
& Finishes
his Book?

We honestly believe
This would turn the tide
of this battle between eSTATEs

Tolkien & PJ & company..
(If Fans could See Christopher
in Wellington. For the Premiere?)

He would understand what a Wonderous Worldwide
Effect..his father gifted.

Bomby

TB&G