Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
I feel kind of silly (regarding The Red Book of Westmarch)

Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Dec 25 2014, 5:35am

Post #1 of 16 (1314 views)
Shortcut
I feel kind of silly (regarding The Red Book of Westmarch) Can't Post

I've just begun a reread of The Hobbit (which I last read in December 2012), and I took notice for the perhaps the first time that the narrator is in fact meant to be an Tolkien himself and not Bilbo. This may seem an obvious observation to many, but I'll be honest - I'd gone these years under the mistaken belief that The Hobbit was meant to actually be Bilbo's book There and Back Again, while The Lord of the Rings was Frodo's own work - both found in The Red Book.

But, in fact, the novels are meant to be merely derived from the Red Book and interpreted by Tolkien. How is it that this was not obvious to me long before now? I admit I feel rather thick. Crazy

In essence, that really does add to the conceit that the books are Middle-earth interpreted by Tolkien, while the films are Middle-earth interpreted by Jackson. Neither one being the "original" source.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Finding Frodo
Tol Eressea


Dec 29 2014, 4:30pm

Post #2 of 16 (1055 views)
Shortcut
Don't feel silly [In reply to] Can't Post

Peter Jackson led you to that belief, and it is a handy device for the films. I hope PJ doesn't actually think that The Hobbit is Bilbo's book, though. It rankles me to see Ian Holm even begin writing, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." Well, of course! And I really have to grit my teeth and make up a plausible excuse for him to continue with "What is a hobbit?" when all of the Shire is still full of them -- namely, that movie-Bilbo could be writing his book for the edification of people elsewhere who are not familiar with his kind.

Where's Frodo?


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 29 2014, 10:15pm

Post #3 of 16 (1041 views)
Shortcut
sources [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
In essence, that really does add to the conceit that the books are Middle-earth interpreted by Tolkien, while the films are Middle-earth interpreted by Jackson. Neither one being the "original" source.



Well any fan fiction writer can claim that Tolkien's translation isn't really the original source. In any case the question has often been: are the films faithful (or faithful enough) to Tolkien's version? Jackson doesn't have access to anything but Tolkien's translation.

And who has ever argued, or can, that Tolkien's translation of (parts of) the Red Book is not faithful enough to the source material he wasworking with?

It's interesting that when Tolkien still seemingly held to the conceit that Elfwine was the Old English translator of the ancient Narn, he had Elfwine note (in part): "... but though this verse mode is not unlike the verse of the English, I have rendered it in prose, judging my skill too small to be at once scop and walhstod. Even so my task has been hard enough, and without the hep of the Elves could not have been completed. I have not added to Dirhaval's tale, nor omitted from it anything that he told; neither have I changed the order of his history. (...)"

Alfwine And Dirhaval, text B, JRRT, The War of the Jewels


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Dec 29 2014, 11:32pm

Post #4 of 16 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

...we have to take Tolkien's word for it, don't we? Since we don't have access to the "original" sources, i.e. The Red Book.

Regardless, I have a different perspective on adaptations than most around here anyway. I welcome the differences, preferring to view adaptations as "retellings" (as all great tales have). The changes and differences merely enhance my appreciation of the story. If there's something I prefer in the book, that simply increases my enjoyment of the book - it doesn't prompt ill will on my part toward the film(s).

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 30 2014, 1:02pm

Post #5 of 16 (1008 views)
Shortcut
changes [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
...we have to take Tolkien's word for it, don't we? Since we don't have access to the "original" sources, i.e. The Red Book.



Of course. And since that much is obvious I'm not sure why you introduced the films (in the reading room) as 'also' not being the original source. You could say the same about the worst fan fiction out there :shrug:


Quote
Regardless, I have a different perspective on adaptations than most around here anyway. I welcome the differences, preferring to view adaptations as "retellings" (as all great tales have). The changes and differences merely enhance my appreciation of the story. If there's something I prefer in the book, that simply increases my enjoyment of the book - it doesn't prompt ill will on my part toward the film(s).



So any changes, and in any number, are fine with you in theory?


(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 30 2014, 1:03pm)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Dec 30 2014, 1:06pm

Post #6 of 16 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Wow! [In reply to] Can't Post

So the discussion at hand is whether a conceit that Tolkien created justifies liberties taken in an adaptation of his work, because Tolkien already took liberties in adapting the "original work" that in reality is nothing more than a conceit that Tolkien created to make his own work more interesting?
Wow!

'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


EomundDaughter
Lorien

Dec 30 2014, 1:59pm

Post #7 of 16 (1201 views)
Shortcut
Making me dizzy but love it !! [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 30 2014, 2:21pm

Post #8 of 16 (1002 views)
Shortcut
Well I didn't bring it up... [In reply to] Can't Post

... and there are already arguments attempting to justify changes, generally speaking, but I don't know of any film Unfan who is against changes, generally speaking.

And of course there is a real copy of the Red Book out there somewhere, possibly protected by wild boars at the moment.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Dec 30 2014, 3:05pm

Post #9 of 16 (994 views)
Shortcut
Brilliant! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
And of course there is a real copy of the Red Book out there somewhere, possibly protected by wild boars at the moment.


That's one of the wittiest things I have seen in a long time. Well played!

(And I knew that you didn't bring it up, nor were making the argument that I was expressing bemusement at.)

'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


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 30 2014, 3:57pm

Post #10 of 16 (985 views)
Shortcut
I knew you knew [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
(And I knew that you didn't bring it up, nor were making the argument that I was expressing bemusement at.)



... I just wanted it to be clear to all I guess Smile

And to Aragorn the Elfstone (if you should read this post that is), I'm not trying to 'catch you' with my question in my last post, as I assume (!) your answer is going to be no, that this stance doesn't mean that you are open to any liberties or changes that are possible, which includes changes so drastic that the original story would be barely recognizable. It's a very big door to open...

... I mean that stance is still possible, so correct me if I'm wrong about that.

But if you desire a certain measure of faithfulness (subjective as that is) to Tolkien's books, and yet are open to changes (generally speaking), then generally speaking we are in the same boat.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Dec 30 2014, 5:30pm

Post #11 of 16 (973 views)
Shortcut
Happy to amuse you! ;) [In reply to] Can't Post

Wink

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Dec 30 2014, 5:43pm

Post #12 of 16 (977 views)
Shortcut
Hmm... Yes...and no. [In reply to] Can't Post

(As Elves are prone to answer Wink).

Would I be okay with changes so radical that the story itself is unrecognizable? With regard to an original story I love so much as The Hobbit (as well as Tolkien's other works) - probably not.

However, I don't think I'm against major changes in theory. Take the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica done by Ronald D. Moore in 2003-2009. It radically changed many elements of the original Glen Larson television show (much to original fans' dismay), yet what it achieves as a piece of drama on its own is almost unparalleled in the television medium. Its differences from the original should not be held against it - it is unquestionably a triumph.

The difference there, for myself, being that I was not in love with the original story - nor was it (to put it bluntly) a revered work. But I think it does show the possibility of straying dramatically from the source material and still achieving something truly great.

Would such an approach to Tolkien's writings be okay by me? My gut (and emotional connection to Tolkien) says probably not. But, objectively speaking, I don't think I'd ever really know until I saw it with my own eyes.

P.S. I'm terribly sorry for the digression here. This is the reading room, not a movie forum, and my mention about the films in my OP was meant to be just a passing comment. My apologies.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 30 2014, 5:48pm)


Darkstone
Immortal


Dec 30 2014, 7:58pm

Post #13 of 16 (996 views)
Shortcut
The original Red Book is at Oxford. [In reply to] Can't Post

The images are copyrighted, but here is a link.

http://image.ox.ac.uk/...sus&manuscript=ms111

Obviously Tolkien took quite a few liberties in interpreting the text, not to mention making a slight change to the title.

******************************************
The tremendous landscape of Middle-earth, the psychological and moral universe of The Lord of the Rings, is built up by repetition, semi-repetition, suggestion, foreshadowing, recollection, echo, and reversal. Through it the story goes forward at its steady, human gait. There, and back again.
-Ursula K. LeGuin, Rhythmic Patterning in The Lord of the Rings


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 30 2014, 8:50pm

Post #14 of 16 (982 views)
Shortcut
This ain't no Beyoncé! [In reply to] Can't Post

To quote Penny.

See the 'Zarnecki Incursion'


Darkstone
Immortal


Dec 30 2014, 9:27pm

Post #15 of 16 (982 views)
Shortcut
Recommended reading: [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.amazon.com/...id-Day/dp/1862059276

http://www.amazon.com/...Hooker/dp/1411693701

******************************************
The tremendous landscape of Middle-earth, the psychological and moral universe of The Lord of the Rings, is built up by repetition, semi-repetition, suggestion, foreshadowing, recollection, echo, and reversal. Through it the story goes forward at its steady, human gait. There, and back again.
-Ursula K. LeGuin, Rhythmic Patterning in The Lord of the Rings


Elthir
Grey Havens

Dec 30 2014, 11:33pm

Post #16 of 16 (996 views)
Shortcut
well that assumes I can read... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but in any case I prefer Penny Whatserlastname to David Day.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.