Special Viewing for Tolkein, embrace/loath?

[Black Breathalizer]

Draken, that was GREAT!!!

[sun-star]

Wow Draken, Tolkien's biography as written by P.G. Wodehouse... or, two of the greatest writers of the 20th century as played by Jennings and Darbyshire... a very interesting insight!

Excellent

[Cassius]

Good times good times. I bet they would have done the same thing for the animated version of both their series!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Azalea: While I agree with you on those particular incidents (personally, I think that the wizard's duel isn't so unrealistic; can't imagine old Gandie going without a fight!), I disagree that the author has no right to his own work. I go the opposite; I believe that the ownership an author has of his work is interminable, regardless of circumstances. More than that, I consider it a kind of sanctity, something which it is (almost) unholy to violate. Guess we'll have to disagree on that one, eh?

V. funny, Draken! Though I though Lewis hated being called "Clive", didn't he? (I know I would... )

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Azalea: While I agree with you on those particular incidents (personally, I think that the wizard's duel isn't so unrealistic; can't imagine old Gandie going without a fight!)

Sorry GW - but I don't necessarily see the wizard's duel happening as it is in the movie. Even if it did - there was no reason to have it in there - other than to add another long action scene. The wizards duel is one of my most hated scenes.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The wizards duel is one of my most hated scenes.

I'm sure everyone on the moot knows this. But I'm sure your favorite line is "Jackson is just spoon feeding the audience"

[azalea]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Azalea: While I agree with you on those particular incidents (personally, I think that the wizard's duel isn't so unrealistic; can't imagine old Gandie going without a fight!), I disagree that the author has no right to his own work. I go the opposite; I believe that the ownership an author has of his work is interminable, regardless of circumstances. More than that, I consider it a kind of sanctity, something which it is (almost) unholy to violate. Guess we'll have to disagree on that one, eh?

Clarification: I didn't mean the author has "no right to his own work." I should have worded my post differently, I meant that certainly the author still owns his work and has every right to further explain it or interpret it if he wishes. But I also believe that once the work is out there, the audience now "owns" the work in their own minds. The author must accept that. If he was not absolutely explicit about a certain detail of the book (so that readers see it differently), it must not have been that critical to the story as a whole, and that's okay, IMO. Let's just assume PJ had no fetters on his project (time or whatever), and that he simply imagined as he read (as I do about many things in many books), to use our example, the meeting between Saruman and Gandalf. JD (for instance) obviously "read" Gandalf differently than PJ (in our imaginary scenario -- I don't mean to imply that PJ's motivations were solely interpretive, I'm just giving a made-up example). JD "read" Gandalf to be less apologetic, whereas PJ "read" Gandalf as being more humbled (?) by Saruman. Anyway, each reader's assessment might have some validity, and Gandalf might be a little of each at different times, but since Tolkien didn't give us a word for word account of that meeting, each reader cannot say "my way is the RIGHT way." Tolkien could say, "that's not what happened," but he still must understand why it could be a valid interpretation since he did not give the reader a scene that tells what happened in detail. That scene became property of the readers' imaginations.

While it's nice that Tolkien could afterwards clarify some things for readers when asked, the text should speak for itself, and does. Anything else (balrog wings vs. wings of shadow) are up to the reader, assuming it isn't a critical aspect of the story. Tolkien also said that the theme of LotR is death and immortality. Well, sorry, Mr. Tolkien, I didn't get that as the main theme, but I did see a few different themes when I read the book. It may not have been what you wanted me to see or expected me to see, but no matter how I try, those themes jump out at me. Death and immortality are aspects of the story the way I read it, but not themes. Now, I refuse to be told I'm wrong. I may not see it how the author intended, or how others see it, but it all goes back to my belief that no matter how an author might try afterwards for it not to be so, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the interpretation of a "true" reading of a work of literature is in the eye of the reader (I say "true" because there are cases where people read things into a work because they have an agenda to fill, like that feminist you quoted in that one thread, or a racist, or what have you. It's like how many people see religion/ spirituality/ Christianity woven throughout the book, when many say, "I didn't get that at all" -- their background and mindset will determine what they see and how they view events, characters, etc.). I sadly don't have the ability to explain my viewpoint on this in a definitive way, but I hope you can see what I mean. I didn't want you to think I meant the author has no ownership of his work, just that he must share the ownership with his audience after the work is published. Likewise, I don't think the audience can do the same to the author (ie, "he should have done it this way," etc. -- they must accept that the work as it has been done and presented as well).

[Black Breathalizer]

Tolkien gave up his right to THE ONE AND ONLY definitive version of the story the moment he signed movie deals for The Hobbit and LOTR.

[smaug_the_magnificent]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Tolkien gave up his right to THE ONE AND ONLY definitive version of the story the moment he signed movie deals for The Hobbit and LOTR.

I seriously considered clicking on the "report this post to the moderator" link - it's THAT bad !

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
to use our example, the meeting between Saruman and Gandalf. JD (for instance) obviously "read" Gandalf differently than PJ (in our imaginary scenario -- I don't mean to imply that PJ's motivations were solely interpretive, I'm just giving a made-up example). JD "read" Gandalf to be less apologetic, whereas PJ "read" Gandalf as being more humbled (?) by Saruman.

Or else Jackson did NOT care how he read it or what Tolkien had shown was Gandalf's reaction at the meeting with Saruman. Can you deny that Jackson went from Tokien's Aragorn biding his time to reclaim his thone and revealing his identity to the movie version being a wimp in hiding afraid of his heritage?

To me - Jackson didn't care how the character's were in the book - he felt it was just more "exciting" to have Gandalf wimpering behind Saruman.

By the way - the sarcasm of Gandlaf toward Saruman does not indicate that he was wimpering behind him...

"For I am Saruman the Wise. Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

'"I liked white better." I said

'"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."

'"In which case it is no longer white," said I " And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Also - he never told Saruman where the One Ring is located...

"Yes," he said. "I did not expect you to show wisdom, even in you own behalf; but I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, and so saving yourself much trouble and pain. The third choice is to stay here, until the end."

'"Until the end?"

'"Until you reveal to me where the One may be found. I may find means to persaude you. Or until it is found in your despite, and the Ruler has time to turn to lighter matters; to devise, say a fitting reward for the hinderance and insolence of Gandalf the Grey."

'"That may not prove to be one of the lighter matters," said I. He laughed at me, for my words were empty, and he knew it."

He does not back down to Saruman - he does not wimper asking for his forgiveness for having had the Ring under his nose all these years in the Shire. He doesn't even tell Saruman where the Ring is.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Tolkien gave up his right to THE ONE AND ONLY definitive version of the story the moment he signed movie deals for The Hobbit and LOTR.

Contrary to your beliefs - there is only ever ONE definitive version of a story and that is the ORIGINAL. Mort d'Arthur is more definitive than White's Sword in the Stone. Mort d'Arthur is more definitive than Excalibur which is based on Mort d'Arthur.

Lord of the Rings is a book that was written by an author. No matter how many movies are done - it will ALWAYS be the ONLY definitive version of Lord of the Rings. Everything else is just a loose copy.

[EDIT - needed to correct stupid typos]

[Kalimac]

And, how is that no one here has mentioned this particular quote from one of JRR Tolkien's letters?

From the Preface of the 2nd edition of The Silmarillion, page xii, From a Letter by J.R.R. Tolkien to Milton Waldman, 1951:

"Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story -- the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths -- which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd."

It seems rather clear to me that Tolkien desired others to tell and retell the stories of Middle-earth . . if he indeed was trying to recreate a mythology . . or legends . . the way to do it is through word of mouth, passing the story along, others always adding to the body of work . . until the legend comes alive with the telling. Tolkien created the framework, the blueprint to Middle-earth . . allowing others to take up the mantle and fill in the gaps in their own way.

Of course, we can never know the real answer to this question about whether he would have liked or disliked the movies . . but I think he would have been pleased with the effort.

That's my 2 cents.

[azalea]

I think my Tolkien/ Jackson example was a little too loaded for the idea I was trying to get across in my clarification to GW (of course all of this is somewhat off topic, but not so much that I feel it's inappropriate to post here).
ASIDE from the consideration brought up in the Letter Kalimac posted, which highlights a point to be made regarding whether or not LotR in specific is open to be interpreted broadly by dramatization or retellings, I was trying to make a general point regarding ANY author's role in the interpretation of his own work, and his role in the acceptance of the interpretations of that work by others. It just so happens that I was reading the Cliff's Notes on Lord of the Flies when I came across a paragraph in the analysis that said better than I what I feel to be a truth. I will quote the relevant parts of that paragraph here (Incidentally, I plan to post more of the entire analysis in the LotF book club discussion thread what we're done reading it).
Although I don't think Cliff's Notes is by any stretch the definitive authority on literary analysis, they certainly have been successful in the business of giving brief analysis of great works to the "masses," and thus I'm confident that they can be considered a credible source to back up my position on the matter (however, I'll again state that I completely understand and respect the opposing viewpoint, and don't disagree that people who hold that view have a valid argument for their position).

From "Cliff's Notes on Golding's Lord of the Flies":
"It will be useful before turning to the theories voiced by the literary critics to examine the statements made about the novel by Golding himself. Certain limiting qualifications must be made, however, about an author's analysis of his own work. As an artist and creative writer, Golding is naturally most concerned with his work as an artistic and conceptual unity. His remarks will not deal with intricate details of symbolism and meaning, and may even contradict or weaken some of the findings of critics. This should not automatically be used as a means to question or discredit the results of investigations conducted by literary scholars. The writer originally conceived of his work as a whole, and must continue doing so by virtue of his artistry. Literature is not usually the product of a concious and premeditated plan to achieve certain specific effects, for artists do not conciously and artificially create symbols and "X" number of levels of meaning. The writer's creation is as much intuitive and emotional as it is premeditated and intellectual. The fact that Golding may not restate or even acknowledge some of the discoveries or theories of literary critics does not indicate that these ideas are therefore incorrect. This has often been the relationship between writers and their critics. Furthermore, the question that must be dealt with is often not what the author meant, or thinks he has meant, but what he has actually achieved [my emphasis]. To the extent that a writer has written as a result of a natural and indefinable artistic inspiration, he may be fallible in his afterstatement about the nature and worth of his art. At the same time, it should always be remembered that the writer is closer to his work than anyone else, and that his understanding of it is an essential contribution to any complete analysis [again my emphasis]."

This passage differs a bit from what I was originally trying to get across, as it deals with "author and critic" as opposed to "author and reader," and symbolism is highlighted here because LotF contains overt symbolism, while LotR does not. But the main message is the same, that IMO the author, though he retains ownership of the work (and by ownership I am not in any way referring to legality here), also must share that ownership (again, in an interpretive sense) once he has put it out there to be read. This is a choice he makes whether he likes it or not the moment he publishes it. A good author will, I believe, accept and embrace that, while continuing to give his own point of view on the matter if he wishes. Otherwise, why publish it at all? An author who realizes this after the fact and dislikes it can either continue to publish in hopes of redirecting the reader, or can stop publishing.
Okay, I think I've said enough on that matter, sorry, folks. I think there was a similar topic in the books forum, but I do think my post has relevance to the topic we're discussing here: the author's view of an interpretation of his own work.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Lord of the Rings is a book that was written by and author. Now matter how many movies are done - it will ALWAYS be the ONLY definitive version of Lord of the Rings. Everything else is just a loose copy.

We know they are your definitive version. But how can LOTR books be the definitive version for people who have only seen the movies? Hate it all you want, the reality is that Peter Jackson's movies have become part of the modern mythology of The Lord of the Rings.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
We know they are your definitive version. But how can LOTR books be the definitive version for people who have only seen the movies? Hate it all you want, the reality is that Peter Jackson's movies have become part of the modern mythology of The Lord of the Rings.

Because the books ARE the definitive version - just like Shakespeare is the definitive verison of Romeo and Juliet even if the only Romeo and Juliet you saw was the Leonardo DiCaprio film version.

And they have not become the mythology of the Lord of the Rings - because in a couple of years - the movies will be collecting dust on most of these so called fan's bookshelves.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And they have not become the mythology of the Lord of the Rings - because in a couple of years - the movies will be collecting dust on most of these so called fan's bookshelves.

We'll see.

[hectorberlioz]

How can a copy become a definitive version? rubbish. it cant, and wont, errr....will not.
those people who've only watched the movies could care less about what the books say. to them LotR is just another Dungeons and Dragons. they cannot not decide the definitive version.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
those people who've only watched the movies could care less about what the books say. to them LotR is just another Dungeons and Dragons.

Exactly and they don't look it any differently than Terminator 3 or Fast and Furious or any other block buster action movie.

[hectorberlioz]

and LotR has built up fans over decades..., and to make a actionized movie of it, and hand it over to those DnD fans......, grrr need to go back to venting thread.....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
and LotR has built up fans over decades..., and to make a actionized movie of it, and hand it over to those DnD fans......, grrr need to go back to venting thread.....

I was thinking of going over there myself. To think that a great book has been reduced down to a dumbed down action movie that is just spoon fed to the masses. I knew there was a problem when Arwen was on the Burger King glass - considering what a minor role she plays in the books.