The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
Did Tolkien actually want to rewrite The Hobbit?



Níniel
The Shire


Dec 17 2012, 5:02pm


Views: 6133
Did Tolkien actually want to rewrite The Hobbit?

Please excuse me if this has already discussed. I have been wondering about this a lot lately. I keep hearing from various sources, most notably PJ, something like this:

"After he wrote Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wanted to rewrite the Hobbit in a similar, more mature style, but eventually gave up on the idea."

I was just wondering if anyone can substantiate this claim. Didn't "The Quest of Erebor" basically accomplish this (albeit in a short space)?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Dec 17 2012, 5:08pm


Views: 5330
Yes, but not badly enough to complete a full revision...

Tolkien did begin a complete revision of The Hobbit, but stopped after showing his early efforts to a friend who told him that it was very nice--but it just wasn't The Hobbit. Tolkien did rewrite "Riddles in the Dark" and parts of the following chapter to bring the book more in line with The Lord of the Rings.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Níniel
The Shire


Dec 17 2012, 5:13pm


Views: 5168
thank you!

Thanks for the reply! I was wondering if you could explain where you got this info (Tolkien biography, letters, etc)?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Dec 17 2012, 5:27pm


Views: 5229
My source

I got this from the two-volume The History of The Hobbit written by John D. Rateliff. The book includes early drafts of The Hobbit as well as the existing text and notes for the uncompleted 1960 revision.

I believe that there are also notes about the proposed changes in The Annotated Hobbit, but I have yet to read that book.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


geordie
Tol Eressea

Dec 17 2012, 5:34pm


Views: 5193
If I might pop in -

- the info is to be found in its fullest form in John Rateliffe's two-part work 'The History of The Hobbit'. It's an odd story - basically, JRR published TH; the publishers wanted a sequel, and in December 1937 he began writing what would turn out to be LotR. But in 1947, he realized that Gollum's character didn't gel with that in LotR, so he sent what he intended as a sample of a new ch. 5 to the publishers. And boy, was he surprised to see this new material in print when Allen & Unwin published the 2nd ed. on 1951!


geordie
Tol Eressea

Dec 17 2012, 5:35pm


Views: 5155
Gosh, you're quick -

- posted your reply while I was still typing mine.

Smile


Níniel
The Shire


Dec 17 2012, 5:39pm


Views: 5133
Wow, that's an interesting story!//

 


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 17 2012, 9:08pm


Views: 5227
Just to add...

... there is no indication that Tolkien was including material from the Appendices as the filmmakers have, in The Hobbit proper I mean. In my opinion some of Jackson's commentary has implied [even if unintentionally] that Tolkien intended this.

Tolkien revised The Hobbit for the second edition of 1951. It's a bit of an unusual story in general [already hinted at by geordie], as to how this revision came about, but generally speaking, a notable revision was made with respect to Gollum's relationship with the One Ring [as it came to be].

Tolkien next wrote the Quest of Erebor for inclusion in the Appendices, but cut most of this out of the Appendices to lighten the boat (as JRRT put it in a letter).

Later JRRT began a major revision -- the 1960 Hobbit -- but abandoned it quite early, as already noted in the thread. In addition to changes to the text, Tolkien was also trying to fix problematic details: like the phases of the moon for example, or distances, or why Gandalf could not read the name [in runes] Orcrist on Orcrist for another example.

In the 1960s JRRT revised The Hobbit again for the third edition, due to the Ace Books controversy.

I think that's a correct external chronology... if very very simplified!


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 17 2012, 9:16pm)


demanon
Rivendell


Dec 18 2012, 1:12am


Views: 5165
look for the Steven Colbert

interview with Peter jackson. Peter asks Steven about this and Steven schools PJ on it.. Talk about a great moment! Oh heck heres the link

http://www.colbertnation.com/...6-2012-peter-jackson


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 18 2012, 3:47am


Views: 5131
Yes but...

... Stephen seems to confuse things a bit. As I see this video...

... Peter Jackson raises the idea, with Stephen Colbert, that the Appendices were Tolkien's notes to revise The Hobbit. First Jackson says something like, this is the case as he understands things, and then that he 'heard' this, but in any case asks Mr. Colbert about it.

Stephen does not specifically note that Jackson is wrong, but gives an explanation that does not confirm Jackson's idea at least. Mr Colbert, while wearing his 'Hobbit feet' incidentally, explains about The Quest of Erebor (the text), but at the end I think he confuses this a bit with the 1960 Hobbit.

Tolkien explained that The Quest of Erebor was cut from the Appendices to lighten the boat. Stephen's explanation was that Tolkien's publishers sort of 'rejected' it, or at least gave the opinion that it was nice but not The Hobbit -- but that rather seems to be the response from an unknown critic to Tolkien regarding the later 1960 Hobbit.

I'm a fan of Stephen but he seems to have mistakenly taken the response to Tolkien's [abandoned] 1960 Hobbit and given it to Tolkien's publishers as a response to The Quest of Erebor. Although he does add that he thinks the entire scenario he described is the case, implying that he is not wholly certain about all of it.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 18 2012, 3:48am)


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 18 2012, 3:57am


Views: 5160
Well there might be some split hairs lying around here somewhere <checks the floor>

What do we know:
*Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings (including those parts that were included in the appendices), The Quest for Erebor, and other works all set in the same world and involving many repeated characters, events that reference each other, and a continuous timeline drawing events all together.
*Tolkien mentioned something about revising The Hobbit
*The only person that would really know what Tolkien was intending would be the man himself - no matter what you might think

So, is anyone suggesting that Tolkien's revision of The Hobbit would have been undertaken without the use of any related appendix material?
If something were to be used in the process of a revision, does that mean that it would have to necessarily put to that use exclusively? Similarly, if something is used as part of the appendix to something else, does that mean it is excluded for use in any other way?

I sometimes wonder ... yes being precise is important ... but can anyone really be as precise as they claim to be about this to the extent that they can definitively state what Tolkien's full intentions were for the appendix material to the exclusion of anything else?


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 18 2012, 5:23pm


Views: 5111
But Peter Jackson has introduced the idea...

... that the Appendices were initially written as 'notes' to revise The Hobbit. Why does he think this? And do you agree?

If Jackson wants to better justify his films by pointing out the mere 'possibility' that Tolkien might have actually revised The Hobbit in this way, that's one thing -- but he is rather implying that this is what Tolkien did intend, at least at one point, by mis-characterizing the Appendices as notes to revise The Hobbit...

... and conflating that with the general truth that Tolkien did intend to revise The Hobbit [again, at least at one point in a 'major' sense, but abandoned this, although the texts of that revision are now available in The History of The Hobbit].


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 18 2012, 5:29pm)


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 18 2012, 5:28pm


Views: 5044
That sounds too precise to be warranted to me //

 


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 18 2012, 5:30pm


Views: 5037
What exactly...

... sounds too precise? Are you going to argue that the Appendices were just 'notes' to actually revise The Hobbit?


Escapist
Gondor


Dec 18 2012, 5:48pm


Views: 5027
no //

 


elevorn
Lorien


Dec 18 2012, 6:16pm


Views: 5026
when did he introduce this idea?//

 



"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com


geordie
Tol Eressea

Dec 18 2012, 6:38pm


Views: 5073
If nobody minds, i'll just pop in this quote here -

- it's from the article 'In their own words' on the Home page -


On the addition of Galadriel and material from the appendices:
Peter: It goes back to the appendices. We can adapt “The Hobbit” and we can take these appendices, which appear in “Return of the King,” which has material I think he was developing as an expanded version of “The Hobbit.” >snip<

So I think he was intending to go back and revise “The Hobbit” or write a companion novel that was going to sort of tie it all together. He never did publish that book or even finish it, but a lot of the material his son published in the back of “Return of the King.”
-end quote -
So according to pJ, the Appendices contain material published by Christopher. Which is nonsense. Earlier this year, pJ announced 'We. Have had Access. To the Appendices! - and later he said that the Appendices are in 'some of the later editions of return of the King'. The fact is that it was JRR who published the Appendices, in the first printing of RotK in October 1955. And in every hardback edition ever since. The Appendices have been available for the last 57 years!


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 18 2012, 6:47pm


Views: 5037
Here, in this interview...

... he raises the idea, first saying as he understands things (or similar), then saying that he 'heard' it, and ultimately asks Stephen Colbert about it.

Earlier someone quoted this much [at another site]. Sorry I don't have the source.


Quote

'That goes back to JRR Tolkien writing The Hobbit first, for children, and only after did he develop his mythology much more over the 16 or 17 years later when The Lord of the Rings came out, which is way more epic and mythic and serious.

What people have to realize is we've adapted The Hobbit, plus taken this additional 125 pages of notes, that's what you'd call them. Because Tolkien himself was planning the rewrite The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, to make it speak to the story of The Lord of the Rings much more. In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn't have a clue what Gandalf was doing. But later on, when he did The Lord of the Rings and he'd hit on this whole epic story, he was going to go back and revise The Hobbit and he wrote all these notes about how Gandalf disappears and was really investigating the possible return of Sauron, the villain from The Lord of the Rings. Sauron doesn't appear at all in The Hobbit. Tolkien was retrospectively fitting The Hobbit to embrace that mythology.

He never wrote that book, but there are 125 pages of notes published at the back of Return of the King in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially his expanded Hobbit notes. So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them.' Said Jackson: 'We haven't just adapted The Hobbit; we've adapted that book plus great chunks of his appendices and woven it all together. The movie explains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We've explained it using Tolkien's own notes. That helped inform the tone of the movie, because it allowed us to pull in material he wrote in The Lord of the Rings era and incorporate it with The Hobbit.'





Jackson's more implying things here in my opinion, and even if unintentionally, he's also leaving out details about the actual textual history of The Hobbit.

Ah geordie beat me to it!


elevorn
Lorien


Dec 18 2012, 7:05pm


Views: 5029
okay...

So is the issue that he refers to the Appendices as notes? or that he incorrectly understands when they were added on? I think its kind of well known that Tolkien flirted and even began rewriting the Hobbit to fit the tone of his Mythology and abandoned it for whatever reason.

Tolkien wrote "The Quest For Erebor" it was unfinished and published by Christopher in "Unfinished Tales". It also exists in the Appendices and is quite similar in nature is it not? PJ only had access to the Appendices of LOTR so he couldn;t really go around saying they used "Quest for Erebor" for script writing stuff, so somewhere in the conversation of script writing they probably took up the language of calling them notes, which, I mean they kind of are notes meant to fill in the gaps of the history writing style of the book.

I don't think he was necessarily meaning to state that they were only notes and meant to be drafted out on a much larger form. But I guess I can see where he may have implied that. I watched the Colbert Report with that interview and didn't get that sense. I felt more like Peter wanted Stephen to talk about it and for himself to come across as ignorant to any other story other than what they had access to. Plus, how many interviews had he done and how much sleep had he had? I know those guys do a whirlwind of interviews in one day.



"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 18 2012, 8:59pm


Views: 5024
the issue at the moment


Quote
So is the issue that he refers to the Appendices as notes? or that he incorrectly understands when they were added on?



Rather the issue is that he states [and also elsewhere implies] that the Appendices were notes made with the intention of actually revising The Hobbit.




Quote
Tolkien wrote "The Quest For Erebor" it was unfinished and published by Christopher in "Unfinished Tales". It also exists in the Appendices and is quite similar in nature is it not?




It survived somewhat. As I noted already, Tolkien said it was cut out of the Appendices to lighten the boat.



Quote
PJ only had access to the Appendices of LOTR so he couldn;t really go around saying they used "Quest for Erebor" for script writing stuff, so somewhere in the conversation of script writing they probably took up the language of calling them notes, which, I mean they kind of are notes meant to fill in the gaps of the history writing style of the book.



But not 'notes' [even if one calls them that] intended to revise The Hobbit. And Tolkien did revise The Hobbit in 1951, and again in the 1960s as well.




Quote
I felt more like Peter wanted Stephen to talk about it and for himself to come across as ignorant to any other story other than what they had access to. Plus, how many interviews had he done and how much sleep had he had? I know those guys do a whirlwind of interviews in one day.




As geordie and I have provided, Peter Jackson has noted this elsewhere. By virtue of ultimately asking Stephen about it one could say that he reveals that he wasn't sure, but he still raised the matter yet again [as he had in print], first explaining [in this interview] that this was the case as he understood it, or heard it -- then asks if it's true.

And I think Peter Jackson must have had time -- even to give the job to someone else -- to investigate this before talking to the press, or to Stephen Colbert.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 18 2012, 9:01pm)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 12:11am


Views: 5017
I read this a few days ago

and brought it up in one of the thread on the Hobbit board, but it's since been long buried - probably on page 4 or 5 by now Laugh

Anyway, when I read it, I was just shocked at the implications of the quote. I wonder if Jackson actually believes that's what the appendices are, or if he's just trying to explain it to someone who doesn't know, or if he's just blowing smoke to make it appear that his added material has some basis in Tolkien.

I don't know about you, but it just saddens me (and infuriates me) that the very people who are adapting this material don't seem to know what it actually is.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 12:16am


Views: 5030
Philippa

As I recall, wasn't Philippa initially brought on board LOTR because she knew the material so well? So I wonder if Peter has just let her (and possibly Fran) mine the appendices and he just works on the script based on what they report to him? It would explain why he doesn't seem to understand what they are.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Dec 19 2012, 1:11am


Views: 5026
...and Fran perhaps don't know the appendices that well, either.

That is, if I was wrong here, and it was Ms. Walsh not the New York Times reporter who thought that there was lots of information about Gollum to be gleaned from the appendices.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 3:40am


Views: 4996
It's interesting, to say the least

And with all this misinformation going about between the three, it goes a long way to explaining why the appendix stuff in the new film is so wonky.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 19 2012, 4:25am


Views: 4996
the smoke


Quote
... or if he's just blowing smoke to make it appear that his added material has some basis in Tolkien.




This is my problem with it: I've never heard anyone characterize the Appendices as notes once written with intent to revise The Hobbit... until the film comes along... and oddly enough, the filmmakers are using the Appendices to 'revise' The Hobbit.


I'll still give Jackson the benefit of the doubt that he's not raising this to better justify his films. Incidentally Janet Brennan Croft just revealed that she was consulted for the film, and she notes [Mythsoc list]:



Quote
As David Bratman said, they had the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but not to any other material. The “Blue Wizards” line is an example of something I told them they shouldn’t use since it’s from Unfinished Tales – I don’t know why they used it anyway, but I get the feeling that Peter Jackson is similar to Tolkien in one respect – he seems about as easy to influence as a Bandersnatch!




Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 5:06am


Views: 1026
It's definitely odd

That they're using the appendices to rewrite it. I'd love to get to the bottom of this someday.

Regarding the blue wizards, your quotation is very interesting. The first thing I thought when I heard Gandalf say "blue wizards" was that they didn't have the rights to that! And if I noticed it, surely someone else did, too. Of course, he could have easily said there were two others, but he can't remember anything about them. That would have steered clear of the copyright issue but still been a nice nod to fans.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


geordie
Tol Eressea

Dec 19 2012, 7:31am


Views: 1061
I think it's a combination of some of these and something else -

in reply to -

"I wonder if Jackson actually believes that's what the appendices are, or if he's just trying to explain it to someone who doesn't know, or if he's just blowing smoke to make it appear that his added material has some basis in Tolkien"

I think he believes it - and I think he believes that the Appendices were added, as he once said, to 'later editions of Return of the King'. Possibly he believes the Appendices were added by Christopher.

The reason I think this is because many years ago he said his copy of LotR was the one-volume p/back with the still from the Bakshi movie on the cover. I have a copy of that edition - it only contains the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen from Appendix A.

I suspect pJ has only discovered the Appendices since he began working on The Hobbit.
.


(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 19 2012, 7:33am)


macfalk
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 10:55am


Views: 1017
Hmm

Viggo Mortensen said that he tooks lots of influence from The Hobbit, The Silmarillion and all the appendecies when crafting the LOTR trilogy. I have a heard time believing that he was unaware of the appendecies 10 years after he made LOTR.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 2:59pm


Views: 1022
Aragorn and Arwen

Wow, I had no idea there was a version with just the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. That goes a long, long way to explaining some of this. It does make all of his recent (since summer) comments make more sense. Now I'm convinced he didn't (and possibly still doesn't) know what the appendices really are.

It's a shame, really. There's loads of material in the appendices that could be beautiful on screen if actually done right.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


macfalk
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 3:08pm


Views: 1045
In my verision

There isn't a single Appendecie at all... too bad, they were cut in the Swedish edition. Had no idea of them until I started digging some.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 3:39pm


Views: 992
Woah

That's loads of wonderful material you're missing out on. Have you gotten an English version and made your way through them all yet?

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 19 2012, 4:27pm


Views: 1008
Jackson's copy

I've heard that too, about Jackson owning a copy without the full Appendices, and as I've said, I believe Jackson really thinks what he thinks rather than believing that he finds this misinformation a convenient justification.

That said [the following is not addressed to you]: how long has it been now since Peter Jackson has been involved with adapting Tolkien or talking to the press about adapting Tolkien? And no one, not in all this time, has ever mentioned to Jackson what the Appendices really are or that they were published in 1955?

And what about Boyens or Walsh... did they also have copies without full Appendices when they were younger?

And they had a consultant to ask in Janet Croft, but Jackson asks Stepher Colbert rather, as well as making statements to the press in any case.

I don't get it Smile


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 19 2012, 4:36pm)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 5:17pm


Views: 1002
I can't imagine a copy without the appendices

When I first read the book (around age 10-11) I didn't read the appendices. I didn't think they were important, but now I can't imagine not reading them. They're fascinating.

The thing that gets me is that here's a filmmaker who has spent probably 10 years or more with the books. How is he just now finding out about the appendices in all their glory? It's just down-right shocking to me. But as I said, it makes all his comments about them much easier to understand.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Dec 19 2012, 6:35pm


Views: 984
TORN's Hobbit-movie forum is moving so fast right now


Quote
Incidentally, Janet Brennan Croft just revealed that she was consulted for the film, and she notes...


...that it's almost impossible to keep up, and thus quite easy not to have realized that Croft's participation was first noted here early on Saturday.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Dec 19 2012, 6:55pm


Views: 982
Not ten years -

pJ hasn't spent ten years with the books - he's had many other projects to think about.

My hobby is 'Tolkien and all that', so when I first heard about the movies (late '99 I think) I kept an eye out for any and all information I could get - mainly from magazines. In one of these I recall pJ saying that he'd read LotR once. On a train journey across NZ, when he was 18. Then when he decided to make a movie/movies of it, he dug out his old paperback and flicked through it, searching for what he calls it 'themes', in order to write the screenplay. I get the impression that he never actually read the book all the way through, twice.

I don't think it makes his remarks any easier to understand. If I knew so little about a subject, I would keep quiet.
.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 19 2012, 7:08pm


Views: 955
I suppose

I was just estimating given the amount of time spent on both trilogies. But I wouldn't be surprised if he actually knew so little as you suggest.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 19 2012, 7:21pm


Views: 1009
I've said it before - and please forgive the repitition....

... but I still think that when Peter Jackson said that about the Appendices being 'notes' which expanded the world of 'The Hobbit' - which I think was the sense in which it was meant - he was offering a brief outline of the development of Tolkien's published fiction - an interview soundbite rather than an in-depth analysis.

If you look at his comment in that light it does work, in a way. The argument would run something like this:

1. Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit'. It started out as a story for his children but became darker and more complex.

2. His publishers wanted a sequel. He wrote 'Lord of the Rings', which started where 'The Hobbit' left off, took decades to write and became darker and more complex still, eventually including a whole series of background notes to explain the backstory of the world he had created - the world which began, as far as the world was concerned, with 'The Hobbit'.

So far as I know, PJ has only described the Appendix material in that way in the context of adapting 'The Hobbit' - specifically, in the context of enlarging the project to three films. That's how he explains what he's doing and in that sense he's not wrong: Tolkien's published 'Middle Earth' fiction begins with 'The Hobbit' and expands into 'Lord of the Rings', with a whole series of background notes on the culture and history of that imagined world. It's just that, viewed apart from the film, there's a whole level of creation he's leaving out - the original mythology that seeped into The Hobbit and underlies Lord of the Rings and the Appendices.

And in the circumstances in which he's speaking - explaining his adaptation for the film - it seems reasonable to leave all that out. It would only complicate the picture for the interviewer, who really wants to know about the film, not the books.


CuriousG
Half-elven


Dec 19 2012, 9:29pm


Views: 940
That makes sense to me

I also thought that he was giving "an interview soundbite rather than an in-depth analysis." And it seemed to me that he'd been criticized in past interviews about LOTR for being a little arrogant or pedantic about what he knew, so in talking to Colbert, it seemed he was trying to appear modest in pretending he didn't know everything.


(This post was edited by CuriousG on Dec 19 2012, 9:29pm)


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 19 2012, 9:49pm


Views: 978
I can't agree, as...

... Peter Jackson has implied or said something quite specific here.


Quote
'... when he did The Lord of the Rings and he'd hit on this whole epic story, he was going to go back and revise The Hobbit and he wrote all these notes about how Gandalf disappears and was really investigating the possible return of Sauron, the villain from The Lord of the Rings. Sauron doesn't appear at all in The Hobbit. Tolkien was retrospectively fitting The Hobbit to embrace that mythology.

He never wrote that book, but there are 125 pages of notes published at the back of Return of the King in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially his expanded Hobbit notes. So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them.'




So Jackson connects the Appendices [as expanded Hobbit notes] to the notes intended to revise The Hobbit.


And in this interview with Stephen Colbert, he makes it clear what he thinks the scenario is: with respect to the Appendices ['from what I understand' says Peter Jackson], Jackson asks Stephen Colbert were they...


Quote

'... kinda like notes that he was preparing to do a revised version of The Hobbit, [there was?] that was the story that I heard'




Peter Jackson does not merely characterize the Appendices as an expansion of Middle-earth, but equates them with notes to revise a specific story -- again, something that the filmmakers are essentially doing with that sory (and so would appear quite justified in doing, if this were the case) -- but the Appendices were not notes to revise The Hobbit however.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 19 2012, 9:54pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 19 2012, 11:27pm


Views: 969
Yes, but you're analysing words spoken in interview....

... in the same precise way in which you would analyse written words. It doesn't work like that. When someone gives an interview, the words that come out aren't all that precise, and they're spoken in a particular context, in response to a particular question.

The context here is 'The Hobbit' - its relation to 'Lord of the Rings' and his adaptation of it - how he can make three films out a a single book. And in that context what he says is correct, as a broad outline of Tolkien's published fiction. The Hobbit came first, LotR was the sequel, and the Appendices, explaining and developing the background grew in the writing of that - and Tolkien did see inconsistencies between The Hobbit and the later work and he did consider rewriting. There is a lot of material in the Appendices which provides background information relating to The Hobbit.

What PJ said is a broad outline only which serves a particular purpose - it explains to an interviewer in simple terms how an apparently short book can be enlarged for a film adaptation along lines the author himself devised.


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 20 2012, 3:51am


Views: 947
words


Quote
... in the same precise way in which you would analyse written words. It doesn't work like that. When someone gives an interview, the words that come out aren't all that precise, and they're spoken in a particular context, in response to a particular question.



In the Colbert interview Jackson is quite clear as to what he means, especially as it echoes what he said in another interview.


Quote
The context here is 'The Hobbit' - its relation to 'Lord of the Rings' and his adaptation of it - how he can make three films out a a single book. And in that context what he says is correct, as a broad outline of Tolkien's published fiction. The Hobbit came first, LotR was the sequel, and the Appendices, explaining and developing the background grew in the writing of that - and Tolkien did see inconsistencies between The Hobbit and the later work and he did consider rewriting. There is a lot of material in the Appendices which provides background information relating to The Hobbit.




Yet none of this addresses the still incorrect sentence that I quoted from the Colbert Repor(t).

Jackson did not merely say that Tolkien saw inconsistencies between the two works, nor merely that there is material in the Appendices which provides background information -- nor did he merely say that Tolkien considered revising The Hobbit.

He said he understood that the Appendices were written with intent to revise The Hobbit. Not so. And context doesn't change this.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 20 2012, 3:56am)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 20 2012, 4:05am


Views: 915
Dont' forget all the interview back in July

When the third film was announced. Peter was claiming that they "had been granted access to the appendices" that were in "one of the later editions of the book". I read those interviews over and over and was just bewildered by it because they've always had access to the appendices. They are part of LOTR and they come with the film rights to the LOTR.

I think geordie nailed it when he explained that PJ likely has been using a copy with only The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the back. It really explains why he's just now discovering the appendices.

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 20 2012, 4:17am


Views: 905
interviews

Right, but above I'm more focusing on the particular claim that the Appendices were kinda like notes in preparation to revise The Hobbit.

If there are more than two instances of that I would like to know... although one seems enough, and two seems more than enough Smile


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 20 2012, 4:23am


Views: 905
Yes, but

I think it corroborates the idea that he doesn't know what the appendices are.

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 20 2012, 4:28am


Views: 902
Well there is that question too

Smile

And by the way, what is your reaction to dormouse's last post in reply to me... if you have one, and care to share it that is (no problem if you don't of course).


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 20 2012, 4:29am)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 20 2012, 4:45am


Views: 1000
I think what Dormouse says is true

But I don't think it's what Peter has been saying.

And I don't agree with Dormouse's last paragraph where he (or she, sorry Dormouse, I'm not sure! Angelic) states this is what PJ means. The appendices are essentially background material that explain and expand the whole history of Middle-earth (and was of course the only account of the first and second ages until 1977). But I don't think Peter knows what the appendices are. He's either deliberately confusing them with the Quest of Erebor writings & the 1960 Hobbit, or he's just confused and unsure. I tend to think it's the latter.

I hope that answered some questions. I never seem to be able to make a compelling argument for anything. I mostly just ramble until I think I've made my point CrazyBlush

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


CuriousG
Half-elven


Dec 20 2012, 1:32pm


Views: 903
I love your comment

 
"I mostly just ramble until I think I've made my point "

That sounds like me. :)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 20 2012, 4:39pm


Views: 892
Oh thank you!//

 

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


macfalk
Valinor


Dec 20 2012, 9:49pm


Views: 911
The PJ and P.Boyens bashing is getting tiresome

I'm all for critique, but sometimes, it would seem that some people take it a bit too far, almost personal, describing their feelings toward these two individuals. Not directed towards anyone in particular - It just saddens me, the venomous tone... and it's even worse on other sites.

There was even a poster here a while back who compared Boyens to the person who tried to destroy the Sistene Chapel. Crazy



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 20 2012, 9:53pm)


CuriousG
Half-elven


Dec 20 2012, 10:00pm


Views: 871
I suppose you're right

Peering into their minds to better understand the literary background to the movies, and the general book/movie connection, is fun. But faulting the movie people in the Reading Room may not be too productive, or it could overtake all our conversations here.


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 20 2012, 10:08pm


Views: 939
Why are you injecting this into this thread

May I ask.

Is anyone here 'bashing' Jackson or Boyens?


macfalk
Valinor


Dec 20 2012, 10:38pm


Views: 914
Yes...

And why are we discussing whether PJ knows the appendecies or not at the Reading Room?



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 20 2012, 10:45pm


Views: 907
Who exactly...

... is 'bashing' Jackson in this thread?


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 20 2012, 10:50pm)


Níniel
The Shire


Dec 21 2012, 2:58am


Views: 907
Please excuse me

if I've broached a sore subject! I was honestly just curious because I've read some things about Tolkien but I'd never heard he thought about revising The Hobbit (beyond just Riddles in the Dark and other LotR-continuity parts). I don't have anything against PJ or Boyens; heavens if I can't keep Tolkien's biography straight in my head, I certainly don't expect busy, talented moviemakers like them to. Wink


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 21 2012, 3:36am


Views: 1090
Well...

... and we don't yet know who Macfalk thinks is bashing Jackson or Boyens. But I would only add that no one expects Peter Jackson to keep Tolkien's biography straight, if by that you are implying a lot of information (and yes I noticed the wink).

However if Jackson is going to choose to make comments about a specific 'text' that he is using, a text which will significantly alter the story of The Hobbit compared to the version readers know -- then one might, naturally enough I think, want to investigate a bit about that text before describing it to the press.

And again, yes he might arguably be busy. He's also quite wealthy and could have someone look into the matter for him -- or more simply, why not avail himself of the Tolkien consultants involved with the film, like Janet Croft.


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 21 2012, 3:46am)


Ostadan
Rivendell

Dec 27 2012, 9:36pm


Views: 921
JRRT's Rewrite

I think that one of the interesting things about JRRT's abandoned rewrite, as seen in Rateliff's book, is that while he made the style more serious by eliminating the first- and second-person asides, he did not change the comic speech of the trolls, nor even alter their names to something less English. So from a stylistic point of view, his goal was not to make it closer to LotR (though that was certainly his intent in matters of plot detail), or less comical, but rather to adopt what he had come to consider a better, less patronizing writing style, noting that even his children had not cared for the original chattiness.

I posted an article a few months ago about Jackson's careless (or deliberately misleading) mischaracterization of the Appendices, and took a fair bit of heat (and some support) for my taking Jackson to task for this. In any case, what we get in the movie seems less to be an adaptation of that material than a general mining for scattered plot elements that are barely recognizable in the final screenplay. Radagast's investigation of Dol Guldur (seemingly surprised that there is dark sorcery at a place called the Hill of Dark Sorcery). The wholly invented Witch-king's tomb. The nearly complete alteration of the history involving Thror, Dain, Azog, and Thrain. And Balin, for that matter (who was a child of seven years at the sack of Erebor). We may still get a flashback involving Gandalf and Thrain, but we can be sure that it will not happen in the dungeons of the Necromancer as Gandalf learns that he is indeed Sauron. You may make your own list. And I have certainly seen comments in various forums from people who believe that this is all 'what Tolkien intended', almost certainly because they heard Jackson say so. Intentionally or not, Jackson has succeeded in spreading misinformation that people remember.


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Dec 27 2012, 11:40pm


Views: 855
I missed your article in August.

So I'm just catching up now with your good words. For anyone else who was away, here is its appearance on TORN's home page (with extensive comments following, many of them nonsense), and here is a discussion of the article on the Hobbit-movie board.

Reading the quotes from the Peter Jackson interview you cited, this one particularly struck me: "In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn't have a clue what Gandalf was doing." This reminds me of the announcer at the Cleveland TubaChristmas, who each year delivers a farewell message which is invariably described as deriving from "Ebeneezer Scrooge, as quoted by Charles Dickens". Tolkien's tale, like Dickens's, is not a work of journalism. What Gandalf is doing "offstage" matters only insomuch as his absence seems believable and Tolkien chooses to explain it. In fact, Gandalf's departures from the story are part of the art of the storytelling (let me say this again: not knowing what Gandalf is up to is part of the book's appeal) and not a mistake that needs correction.

Anyway, I am very glad to see someone make the point that the 1960 Hobbit probably wouldn't have been very much like Jackson's version!


Quote
You can make your own list.


FYI, on the movie board, titanium_hobbit has made a preliminary attempt to list differences between the book(s) and film. I'm going to link there to your post, for your comment on Balin's age, which hadn't been mentioned there.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


tolkienreborn
Bree


Jan 1 2013, 9:51am


Views: 822
Interesting

Personally I think Tolkien should have just started over - I find it strange he would think about re-writing the hobbit.

This makes me believe he wasn't happy with it.. :)

I am very happy I wondered into this post.
I can add this to the list of why I don't like Tolkien.


moreorless
Gondor

Jan 4 2013, 10:58am


Views: 846
To be fair this doesnt seem heavly implied...


In Reply To
and brought it up in one of the thread on the Hobbit board, but it's since been long buried - probably on page 4 or 5 by now Laugh

Anyway, when I read it, I was just shocked at the implications of the quote. I wonder if Jackson actually believes that's what the appendices are, or if he's just trying to explain it to someone who doesn't know, or if he's just blowing smoke to make it appear that his added material has some basis in Tolkien.

I don't know about you, but it just saddens me (and infuriates me) that the very people who are adapting this material don't seem to know what it actually is.



Jackson really doesnt seem to be making this point very strongly and I'd say the idea that Tolkien wrote parts of the appendices to "fill in the details" is not too far from the reality of the situation IMHO.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jan 4 2013, 5:25pm


Views: 940
But there are other interviews with him

that shed light on these comments. Elthir, geordie, and myself have already heavily discussed all these (along with a few others). I actually found this whole thread to be very enlightening in regards to Peter's thoughts on the material.

There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall and the bells in the steeple, too.
And up in the nursery an absurd little bird is popping out to say coo-coo (coo-coo, coo-coo).