The Critics' treatment of Tolkien & Jackson

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Pfffft. That's just silly. Where there any others he mentioned? Or anyone else you know of?

[squinteyedsoutherner]

A modern simile is not a "mistake" even if your prof thought it was. Many period works of fiction contain modern similes, afterall, similes are for readers to make comparisons and anyone reading the book would know what an express train was. Is that all you mean by mistakes? I am interested in your comments that "Jackson brought more technical skill to his craft than Tolkien" and your implication that Tolkien made structural or literary "mistakes" in his work that have somehow been improved by this screenplay.

[Black Breathalizer]

I'm not interested in poking holes at Tolkien. I simply shared what one member of the so-called "academic elite" told me.

Tolkien was a Oxford Don who wrote the Hobbit and LOTR in his spare time. He was not a professional writer in the same way Stephen King or Robert Jordan are. Peter Jackson is a professional screenwriter and director. He makes movies fulltime. Both men are brilliant. I was simply making the point that Tolkien went up to his attic and wrote AFTER putting in full days as a college professor. Frankly, I don't know how in the world the man did it.

I've commented that Jackson has improved SMALL PARTS of Tolkien's work. Most parts of Tolkien were wonderful as they were written and Jackson was wise to keep as close to the original story as the art of film-making allowed. However, I do find it very interesting that people who never hesitate to bash Jackson for perceived "errors" in the films are quick to dismiss any error (like the OBVIOUS one identified above) that Tolkien made.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In a fantasy about a pre-industrial society, describing a dragon with the term, like an express train is a mistake of "Peter Jacksonian" magnitude.

You've started some really interesting threads lately BB! This is an interesting quote, and I actually think that this happens to many great and classic writers.

Case in point, Shakespeare mentions cannons in MacBeth, even though he set it before cannons were invented. When this was pointed out to me by my grade 12 English teacher, she didn't think less of Shakespeare for making this mistake. The cannons made a great poetic device, it just didn't quite fit. This is hightly comparable to Tolkien's 'express train'.

And I don't think you're a Tolkien basher, you defended him against your snooty English prof.

edit: Having trouble spelling "Shakespeare"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB: According to many Letters he wrote, it seems that the Lord of the Rings was Tolkien's main priority during a good deal of the time he was writing it. Also, he wrote it over a space of 11-12 years, I think. Just FYI concerning how in the world the man did it.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Breathalizer you are wrong again.

"he began to feel a shriek coming up inside and very soon it burst out like the whistle of an engine coming out of a tunnel"

The Hobbit.

That one I did from memory. Your quote is definitely NOT an "obvious" mistake, (and you, to be frank, are being stupid when you call Jackson's burning ringwraiths, or the clear geography blunders in Rohan, "perceived" mistakes, as though that is something I, and others, are reading into the scenes). There are quite a few metaphores and similes of this sort throughout Tolkien's books and despite you and your professor's assertion they are not "mistakes". Maybe you don't like them and maybe you feel they are out of place, but they are intentional. As I said before, if you read period fiction, you will find this frequently.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Um, squinty, he said that he defended Tolkien.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

He still seems to be of the opinion that his prof was right, and that the quote is an "obvious" mistake.

[Wayfarer]

Tolkien has already spoken on these kind of 'obvious mistakes', and he makes his opinion clear:

"I first tried to write a story when I was about seven. It was about a dragon. I remember nothing about it except a philological fact. My mother said nothing about the dragon, but pointed out that one could not say 'a green great dragon', but had to say 'a great green dragon'. I wondered why, and still do."

I wonder as well. Tolkien, especially in the hobbit and the first chapter of lord of the rings, wrote that way intentionally, because it conveyed what he wanted to convey.

[Black Breathalizer]

I was just using the quote I mentioned as a nit-picky example of why the Academic Elite tend to "look down their noses" at Tolkien's work.

I love Tolkien. I defended him against my English Professor--and I did it with the same zeal I've defended Jackson against his detractors on this board.

[Huan]

But to get back to the original question, BB, that's just it: look how academics treat Tolkien without a second thought. Well, they hate the entire medium of film as inferior to the written page. The movies can't change their mind. LOTR the movie could be better than Citizen Kane and academic critics wouldn't acknowledge that.

[Black Breathalizer]

The issue of film versus book criticism is a whole different deal. My point was just that film critics are actually treating the LOTR films with A LOT MORE RESPECT than book critics ever gave Tolkien, at least until after his death.

I think a new film critics' list of the "classic films of all time" would likely include Jackson's LOTR trilogy right up there with The Godfather and Citizen Cane. But a literary critics' list of the classic books of all time would likely not include Tolkien's masterpiece.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, that just shows how much literature critics know.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, that just shows how much literature critics know.

Omigod...Gwaimir and I actually AGREE on something!!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

See? We aren't COMPLETELY opposite. We both are huge fans of Tolkien.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Case in point, Shakespeare mentions cannons in MacBeth, even though he set it before cannons were invented.

and there's a reference to a clock striking the hour in Julius Caesar.

The criticisms of JRRT seem to fall into two camps: those who abhor fantasy fiction in general, and deem it unworthy as a genre; and those who take technical issue with things like the pomposity and constipation of his language, flatness of the characterisation and some of the dodgy stuff about racial purity and squinty-eyed southerners.

(The first lot are just a bit up themselves and self-important; the second need to get a life)

However, the point is that the fantasy genre is firmly established, and even respected, within the film industry, so Jackson's version already has an advantage in terms of how the critics view it: they can't dismiss it out of hand.

Obviously, in a film, the technical de/merits are different from a book (!). Frankly, IMO, the best that will happen to LOTR the movies is that they will be seen as a landmark for the deployment of special effects and the richness of design. As I've said before on other threads, I don't think the storytelling aspect is done that well in the films and because of this they won't be seen as classics.

On the other hand, I think that people who love the books will always love the films because of the richness of the design.

cheers

d.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Except BoP and Wayfarer.

[Evenstar1400]

i know i will still love the books no matter what pj does to the movies!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dunadan
the point is that the fantasy genre is firmly established, and even respected, within the film industry, so Jackson's version already has an advantage in terms of how the critics view it: they can't dismiss it out of hand.

Whoa there partner...I must disagree with you. I think it was the exact opposite--PJ had an incredible disadvantage with critics. Without a doubt, fantasy is THE LEAST respected genre in the film industry. On top of that, name ANY "sword & sorcery" film that has enjoyed widespread critical acclaim before FOTR. Conan? The Beastmaster? Red Sonya? Deathstalker? Legend? Willow? The closest I can think of was Excalibur and although it was good, it isn't in FOTR's league.

[Entlover]

I just fell off my chair. . .
Just curious as to how anyone can compare a hack writer like Stephen King with Tolkien?