|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Apr 11 2015, 1:30am
Post #76 of 96
(1085 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Didn't you just equate the two?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Judging the quality of a film adaptation on its faithfulness to the source material is on the same level as judging its quality based on whether or not it's subtitled? Do I have that right?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 8:50am
Post #77 of 96
(1057 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They are both things some people do.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Along with the other examples.
None of them receives any serious consideration - just because some people judge quality in that way doesn't make it worth taking account of.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 11 2015, 8:52am
Post #78 of 96
(1059 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's fair to say it, of course, but does that make it less valid?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd say not. I think Lewis made a very valid observation there and couldn't give a hoot what any school of criticism makes of it. Aren't you the one arguing for the validity of plural points of view? On this point I'm with Lewis!
And you know, what you're putting forward is a caricature of what I'm saying - twisting the argument just a little bit to make it sound silly (neat technique, that... ;-) ). I've never said anything about 'having a hotline into someone else's brain'; about being 'on message' or about measuring the author's skill by the narrowness of the range of responses. Or about 'authorially certified right answers'. One of the joys of Tolkien is that breadth of individual responses. But they are sparked by one source. Tolkien's writing is at the centre. One man created those texts and his relationship to them is essentially different from that of his readers. His voice speaks through the books. What each reader hears is determined by attitude, character, beliefs, education, culture, what they had for breakfast, a whole myriad of variables, but they all read the same words. His. We may never know exactly what he meant - and his ideas changed down the years too, making the whole game even more fascinating - but all that joyful discussion and analysis and debate is surely about trying to understand his stories and pooling our individual (and equally vaild) responses to them? Not to find one orthodox and unchallengeable view, but to glimpse the heights and depths and colours we haven't thought of ourselves. For me one of the greatest joys in the films is exploring an interpretation of the stories that isn't mine, and playing with new ideas about them.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 9:38am
Post #79 of 96
(1056 views)
Shortcut
|
There is no reason not to like Lewis' quote - I was just pointing out that there were a large number of other voices that disagree with it.
My apologies on the phrasing - I genuinely wasn't trying to caricature anything, just trying not to use the same phrases overmuch.
And then I think I agree with the rest, pretty much, which is a bit puzzling. It sounds like, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't think there is one correct interpretation of a book, defined by the author's intent but that there are multiple valid interpretations which can be spurred in multiple readers?
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 11 2015, 10:55am
Post #80 of 96
(1048 views)
Shortcut
|
... something like this:
It's pitch dark in the room and there are several people blundering round looking for the elephant. They don't know what an elephant is, just that there is one in there. One person manages to grab the tail and says "I have the elephant. It's long and thin and has a hairy end." Another says, "No, I have the elephant and it's rounded and heavy, with some hard, flattish discs at the end. It's so firmly fixed to the floor I can't move it." Another says "no, you're both wrong. It's about the thickness of my arm, ridged and very flexible." And another.... well, I'm sure you get the picture.
When it comes to understanding Tolkien we all have a bit of the elephant. We don't get more elephant until we start listening to the bits other people have got - and fathoming out why they're so different. But none of us has more than a piece. There is a whole elephant there somewhere, though we're never going to find it all....
Puzzling? I'm not surprised. I puzzle myself sometimes!
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 11:08am
Post #81 of 96
(1047 views)
Shortcut
|
One of those perceptions of a part of the whole elephant* or are we suggesting the author intends to create all of those different impressions and convey them to the individual perceivers?
*And, if so, are the other percievers perceptions valid or not?
If I may suggest, and feel free to say that I have the wrong end of the stick, it feels as if you are intellectually happy with the idea that readers have a range of valid interpretations but, in a different way, are anxious that this takes some credit away from the author? Or maybe I'm off the mark?
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Apr 11 2015, 11:09am)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 11 2015, 1:11pm
Post #82 of 96
(1032 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I thought we'd done the validity bit....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes, your interpretation of the book - any book - is valid for you. As is mine for me, and so on. A rainbow of perceptions, each of them equally valid and meaningful to the one who perceives. The person holding the elephant's tail - or other body part - was quite right about it, just didn't comprehend how much more elephant there was.
I suppose I'd place the author's understanding and experience of the book (I prefer that to 'intent') somewhere in the heart and mind of the elephant - out of touching range and yet animating the rest - and essential to the whole in the way no individual reader is.
But forget the flipping elephant! What you're hearing here is a dialogue between self as reader and self as author. As a reader I delight in all varieties of interpretation. As a writer I know that no reader understands that text as intimately as I do. No one else struggled over it until the pieces came together or felt the sudden flashes of delight at finding just the right word, with all shades of meaning in place. And as a writer I reserve the right to say no, my book isn't an allegory of nuclear fusion - though if you see it that way, good luck to you. It's actually about a chap who climbed mountains: I know 'cos I wrote it!
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 1:51pm
Post #83 of 96
(1029 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't see how the first and last points can both be true.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How can the author be able to define the meaning of the book full stop ("no it is not an allegory for nuclear weapons") but it also be valid for a reader to take that interpretation from it?
Or do you mean the author is only saying what the book means to him/her, not to everyone?
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Apr 11 2015, 2:38pm
Post #84 of 96
(1027 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Surely this is irrelvant regards TH films?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As there it is not a matter of anyone's interpretation you could give a million people a million copies of the book and get them to read it a million times I still bet no one will come back to you and talk about their interpretation of the love triangle between elf, dwarf and elf.
PJ hasn't interpreted Tolkien- he has just invented his own story and hung it on the framework of TH book outline- but at every single crucial point- from character personalities and motivations, to the structuring, the character arcs, the tone, the sense of humour- its entirely invented.
Invention is not interpretation, it requires no interpretation, or any care for the original work at all in this case- its a new created story using the books beats as the outline, but nothing more. I dont see what interpretation of the authors original intent has to do with it in this case.
The author barely appears in the films- his work has been hijacked for a new cause- which probably explains why you have go into the small print on the posters to find any mention of Tolkien and why the films bear PJ's name before all else- this is his story, not Tolkien's, which it only resembles in the crudest form.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 11 2015, 5:42pm
Post #85 of 96
(1008 views)
Shortcut
|
Applicability. Tolkien liked the idea of readers finding their own meanings in his story but it was still his story. He still reserved the right to argue against some interpretations suggested by readers - remember the Foreword to Lord of the Rings? Yes, it's a paradox but it's one that appeals to me. He both champions the freedom of the reader to apply and interpret and then goes on to say that in a particular interpretation doesn't work for him and he explains why.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 11 2015, 5:48pm
Post #86 of 96
(1010 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The films are an adaptation of the story...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
.. that makes use of Tolkien's later development of it and other ideas drawn from his writing. And other ideas of the screenwriters' own invention.
Almost all film adaptations invent scenes, it's not wrong or bad in itself. The BBC 'Pride and Prejudice' - arguably the best and most successful adaptation ever - had lots of scenes that don't appear in the book. Whether they work or not is another matter - but the fact that you don't like the interpretation doesn't mean it isn't an interpretation. Just that in your view it's a bad one.
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Apr 11 2015, 6:08pm
Post #87 of 96
(1005 views)
Shortcut
|
when there is little left of the source material and lots of the invention where it has crossed the line from adaptation into invention- TH is a good case.
From making fan edits I know that approximately 50% of the entire runtime is pure invention nothing to do with the book or anything that happens in it (the very fact you can remove 50% of the trilogies runtime and it not effect the story of the main character a jot should tell you there is a problem already)
And don't give me that nonsense about them drawing on Tolkiens appendices- no they dont- they take some place names and some events then completely rewrite everything about them into something else entirely- they are also more invention than adaptation of what is written.
And of the remaining 50% of the films that are based on the book everything is changed- the characters, motivation, the reason things happen, the people involved, the tone, the sense of humour ect ect.
At the end of the day all that is left of the book is the outline- where they go, and the broadest strokes outline of what happens there- but all completely different- everything- how Bilbo sets out- changed. What happen at the trolls- changed. What happens in the mountains -changed, what happens at Beorns- changed, what happens in Mirkwood- changed- what happens in the Elven King Halls- changed- what happen on the river- changed- what happens at Laketown- changed- what happens at the mountain with Smaug- changed- what happens at the battle - changed- what happens at the end of the battle- changed.
There is almost nothing left of what Tolkien wrote bar character and place names. That for me does not qualify it for the title of adaptation. But it sure qualifies it as pure invention.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 6:53pm
Post #88 of 96
(989 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think a paradox is a very neat outcome!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But of course, either way Tolkien can say a particular interpretation doesn't work for him (as anyone else can).
It is the broader point that we can't argue that both the author defines the right meaning of the text and the various readers are free to interpret it in various ways.
It doesn't make any sense to argue for both.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 11 2015, 7:08pm
Post #89 of 96
(986 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The mouse is laughing.... who needs a neat outcome?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would simply phrase it a little differently:
The author defines the original meaning of the text - something only the author has the right to do - but the various readers are free to interpret it in various ways.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 7:11pm
Post #90 of 96
(980 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ha - good to know there is laughter in the teapot.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well, I'm not sure what the "original meaning" is but since it isn't one which troubles readers then I suppose we can not worry too much about it!
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Apr 11 2015, 7:15pm
Post #91 of 96
(986 views)
Shortcut
|
...with that.
But the question is then if you are adapting that work is it still 'interpretation' if you jettison everything bar the basic outline and write in your own characters and plot whilst merely paying lip-service to the source material? And then let the invention take up at least 50% of the runtime, and then you alter completely the other 50% that remains- is what is left still an interpretation? Or is it invention?
Because I just dont see how PJ's TH can be called an adaptation of the book of the same name- when it clearly bears only a superficial similarity to the source material.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 11 2015, 9:08pm
Post #92 of 96
(958 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not that you were asking me, but the answer is yes.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
However, TH is nowhere near that point.
As a marker, a film I happened to be thinking about earlier, "Oh, Brother Where Art Thou" is still an adaptation of the Odyssey.
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Apr 12 2015, 6:52pm
Post #93 of 96
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not saying they were done with authenticity
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
it's really just me having fun with the editing software, as I tried it one time and discovered I had a lot of fun playing with it, so with sometimes I let my imagination run wild on there! :D
I still have the actual movies anyways, so no harm done! 
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Apr 12 2015, 6:55pm
Post #94 of 96
(916 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Unfortunately I don't intend to share my edits over the Internet
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as I think it's illegal to do so :(
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Apr 13 2015, 5:09pm
Post #95 of 96
(894 views)
Shortcut
|
The meaning I take away from The Hobbit and LOTR is how soldier's heart/shell shock/battle fatigue/PTSD affects not just individuals like Frodo, Galadriel, Denethor, etc, but entire cultures like those of Gondor, the Elves, and the Dwarves as well.
Of course Tolkien Scholars say I'm entirely wrong about Tolkien's intent, but this is the theme that makes me love and admire his works, and what ultimately gives me so much comfort in reading them.
Frankly I'm glad I'm wrong.
******************************************
No Orc, No Orc!!
It's a wonderful town!!!
Mount Doom blew up,
And the Black Tower's down!!
The orcs all fell in a hole in the ground!
No Orc, No Orc!!
It's a heckuva town!!!
-Lord of the Rings: The Musical, music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Betty Comden and Adolph Green
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 13 2015, 6:31pm
Post #96 of 96
(889 views)
Shortcut
|
You just happen to have found another piece of the elephant.
I'm surprised anyone would question the importance of war and the effects of war on Tolkien and his writing. It sounds like a meaningful meaning to me.
(This post was edited by dormouse on Apr 13 2015, 6:33pm)
|
|
|
|
|
