"How does one pronounce Tolkien?"

[davem]

This article got me thinking http://www.examiner.com/x-11527-JRR-Tolkien-Examiner~y2009m8d6-Tolkien-101-How-does-one-pronounce-Tolkien - not so much about how to pronounce Tolkien's name (coincidentally, when I first encountered the books ( & for some time later) I did pronounce it as the author of the piece suggests - 'Tolk-ee-en').

That pronunciation is still very evocative for me of my first entry into Middle-earth- as are my other original (mis)pronunciations: Soron, Seleborn, Thee-o-dn, Ee-omer, Ee-owyn, Mynas Tirith/Morgul - even my original mis-reading of Half-ing for Halfling, etc, etc.

Now, as all other well-informed readers do, I know the proper pronunciations & make the effort to get them right, but I'm wondering if I've lost something in leaving behind my original readings? Tolkien himself didn't appear to mind much - in the First Edition Foreword he states:

Much information, necessary and unnecessary, will be found in the Prologue. To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history. At the end of the third volume will be found some abridged family-trees, which show how the Hobbits mentioned were related to one another, and what their ages were at the time when the story opens. There is an index of names and strange words with some explanations. And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets and calendars that were used in the West-lands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, may neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like.

Thinking about it today after reading the article I can't help feeling that, for all I may have got the pronunciations wrong on my first reading, those pronunciations are essential to my experience of Middle-earth, & hold part of the magic of that experience which has been absent from subsequent readings. Its the same with the actual edition of the book which you first read - you may have gone on to buy other (possibly nicer, or at least more expensive) editions, but the experience of re-entering Middle-earth through the same physical book is different to reading it from other editions - & doesn't that also apply to the names & places as you first encountered them?

[Nessa Telrunya]

I agree that something so *small* as the pronounciation of names may hold a lot of stock with how you view middle earth. I suppose one way of saying someone's names can hold a sort of ring in one's mind.

That's interesting, though, I've never thought of it like that until I read what you said about that.

[davem]

. I suppose one way of saying someone's names can hold a sort of ring in one's mind.
.

It holds all the mystery of new things in a new world - we discovered the names (& more importantly the sound of the names) as we discovered the world. For example, the Dark Lord of Middle-earth I first knew, & feared, & fled from, & finally confronted, along with the people of the story was Soron, not "Sowron". In the same way as we form an image of the characters & places when we first read the story, so we also learn their names, & the sound of their names, & the power of that first impression remains on some level - I'd even go so far as to suggest that changing the sound of the name alters & even lessens the magic we first experienced.

[Hakon]

I have to agree that the pronunciation of names greatly affects the way we view the book we read. I had most of the names correct cause I had seen the movies before reading the books and I first read The Hobbit as a class read aloud in elementary school. I used to think that Beleriand was spelled Bereland. That is how I saw it when I first glanced at the name. Now reading it as Beleriand I kind of feel like it lessens the magic.

[Eönwë]

I agree with what you've said, davem. Changing Cirith Ungol to Kirith Ungol, Seleborn to Keleborn and Sirdan to Kirdan was hard for me, and it's not the same. But then, when you read it again, it seems to fit better (at least to me).

As well as this let me take this as an opportunity to ask how you pronounce Smaug. Is it Sm-or-g or Sm-ow-g or neither?

[Nessa Telrunya]

As well as this let me take this as an opportunity to ask how you pronounce Smaug. Is it Sm-or-g or Sm-ow-g or neither?



I use the latter, but I'm not sure which would be "correct"

[Hakon]

To be honest this is the first time I have heard it as Keleborn. I just found that out. I have to say though I prefer Seleborn.

[Galin]

Just to mention it, the first edition Foreword also had a brief guide to pronunciation in any case. So some earlier readers had a few pointers... before meeting Keleborn, for example.

[davem]

Just to mention it, the first edition Foreword also had a brief guide to pronunciation in any case. So some earlier readers had a few pointers... before meeting Keleborn, for example.

It did - but in very small print at the end stating that "Some may welcome a preliminary note on the pronunciation actually intended by the spellings in this history" & then goes on to mention c & g always being 'hard' (ie pronouned as 'k' & 'g' as in 'get', etc, but I don't see this as over-riding the earlier statement that the reader is free to pronounce the names as they like - & even if Tolkien hadn't permitted such freedom to the reader the case I'm making would still stand, because we're talking about the way we experience the story.

Changing Cirith Ungol to Kirith Ungol, Seleborn to Keleborn and Sirdan to Kirdan was hard for me, and it's not the same. But then, when you read it again, it seems to fit better (at least to me).


Its not the same - & I think anyone who has altered their pronunciations to the 'correct' ones & goes back to the books & uses their original ones will find the experience much more powerful. Its a bit like the Peking/Beijing & Bombay/Mumbai thing for my generation - the former names may be 'incorrect' but they have much more romance about them than the latter.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I agree with what you've said, davem. Changing Cirith Ungol to Kirith Ungol, Seleborn to Keleborn and Sirdan to Kirdan was hard for me, and it's not the same. But then, when you read it again, it seems to fit better (at least to me).

As well as this let me take this as an opportunity to ask how you pronounce Smaug. Is it Sm-or-g or Sm-ow-g or neither?

I didn't think of this problem until when I joined the 'Downs, or just a bit after that, because it's always been just Šmak for me (the Czech "translation").

As for the others, I always took great care of pronouncing all names correctly, with the exception of Tolkien (only after learning its origins somewhere, everybody says Tol-kee-en in my home country anyway, there was even a radio broadcast where they said "Well, it should be really pronounced like this and this, but people usually pronounce it that way here, so I think it doesn't matter" and spent the rest of the broadcast calling him Tol-kee-en anyway), and then names like "Cirith Ungol", "Celeborn" and "Círdan", which I pronounced (and sometimes still pronounce, if I am not careful enough) as "Tsirith Ungol", "Tseleborn" and "Tsírdan". I believe that "Kírdan" sounds really awful, by the way. It doesn't sound right to me (the others do).

[Eönwë]

then names like "Cirith Ungol", "Celeborn" and "Círdan", which I pronounced (and sometimes still pronounce, if I am not careful enough) as "Tsirith Ungol", "Tseleborn" and "Tsírdan". I believe that "Kírdan" sounds really awful, by the way. It doesn't sound right to me (the others do).

Yes, definately. But maybe that's only because you pronounced it differently. I know that "Sirith Ungol" sounds much more sinister to me, and a lot of the time I still pronounce "Kirdan" as "Sirdan" by mistake, and maybe it's just because "Kirdan" just isn't the same.

[davem]

I believe that "Kírdan" sounds really awful, by the way. It doesn't sound right to me (the others do).

I think that's an interesting point - its not simply a question of how you first read/'heard' the name in your head, but of what sounds 'right' to your ear. I think that will be different for each of us (& is another argument against any kind of dramatisation of the work - unless as a silent movie:p). Simply put, for some readers the 'correct' pronunciation, while fully authorised by Tolkien, will sound 'wrong' - & so much of Tolkien's effort in creating languages was to evoke emotional responses - Elvish should seem 'beautiful', Orcish should seem 'ugly & brutal, etc, but if the 'official' pronunciation of an Elvish word seems less beautiful to your ear than your own personal pronunciation, surely you should go with your own?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

For many who read the book in the original English though they are not native speakers, the pronunciation is coloured by the influence of their primary language. That means some names may be pronouced correctly, if Tolkien's idea is similar to the use of those sounds in that language. I have no difficulty with the correct pronunciation of "Sauron", for example, as it would be pronounced just like that in German. Cirdan, on the other hand, would be called "Tsirdan" in German.

I find it interesting that the Hobbit first names are least subject to mispronunciation - there's little conflict when saying "Bilbo", "Frodo", "Sam", "Merry" and "Pippin". Could this be part of the concept of having them feel close to us readers? I know the last names have been changed in translation in other languages - as Tolkien intended them to be - but the first names are quite straightforward.

The farther we get from the Shire, the more exotic the pronunciations get, perhaps? Is that a part of moving into a mythological world in the course of the adventure?

And of course the lingist Tolkien used various languages as models for his various peoples. The pronunciation is certainly coloured by those models.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

The only word for which I ever had a quibble over the pronunciation was "Isengard," and the pronunciation of the initial I. Frankly, every possibility sounds wrong... :)

When it came to Elvish, it was grateful to Tolkien for having given Donald Swann his Gregorian Chant-like rendering of "Namarie." As a singer, I've found that music can give one broad strokes as to the correct sound of a language (if not its subtleties), because the rhythm of a tune (a well-written one, at least) places syllabic emphasis where it most naturally falls, and can make the use of incorrect vowel sounds difficult (sometimes downright impossible) to sing. The fact that Tolkien also approved of Swann's renderings of "A Elbereth Gilthoniel" and "In the Willow-Meads of Tasarinan" gives further indications of the rhythm and pronunciations of Elvish, as well as Entish.

Frankly, I don't think I would have ever had any issue over the pronunciation of the hard C if I hadn't heard of the Boston C(S)eltics long before I read LotR, or learned that the word was properly pronounced Keltic. I know an awful lot of people here in the US have that same issue. :D

[davem]

The varied pronunciations given here are fascinating - I wonder if they are determined by people's accents, & the pronunciation of similar looking words they use on an everyday basis?

I also wonder whether people feel a kind of 'emotional' attatchment to their original pronunciations, in the sense that (as I've mentioned) when they revert to their old pronunciations they are 'taken back' to their first reading - rather than simply liking their own pronunciation over the official one?

On the Isengard thing - I remember pronouncing it "Iz'-engard' as opposed to 'Eye-zengard', & I'm wondering whether that was because, encountering an unfamiliar word you sort of attempt to match it up with a similar looking word - & the closest I could come up with was the first name of the engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel?

[skip spence]

For many who read the book in the original English though they are not native speakers, the pronunciation is coloured by the influence of their primary language. That means some names may be pronouced correctly, if Tolkien's idea is similar to the use of those sounds in that language. I have no difficulty with the correct pronunciation of "Sauron", for example, as it would be pronounced just like that in German. Cirdan, on the other hand, would be called "Tsirdan" in German.

Good point. In my mother-tongue Swedish the correct pronunciations usually come easy and naturally. "Soron" sounds wrong to me while the authorized "Sow-ron" is what I've always used. In Swedish the three syllables in Tol-ki-en also come naturally.

As for the hard C's, I'm perfectly fine with Keleborn and Kirith Ungol. For some reason I like Keleborn better than Seleborn, but much prefer Sirdan to Kirdan. Although I too make the effort to get it right (when I know what is right, that is) I would never do it at the cost of reading enjoyment. So Sirdan it is.

[radagastly]

I seem to recall that after my very first reading of TLotR, I studied the appendices rather voraciously, thinking the story too short. I, of course, used the pronunciations "Seleborn" Sirdan" and "Sirith Ungol" etc. I also recall "sah-ROO-man" rather than SEH-roo-man. There were many other examples that I found that I was doing wrong, but the funny thing is, my head retained my original pronunciations through several more readings, despite knowing better. Then it began to evolve. Seleborn became Keleborn sort of on it's own. It's not complete though. I still don't stop-trill the "R" in Mordor. I use the nasal, sustained "R" that I grew up with. (See the movie "Fargo" if you want to hear a slightly over-the-top interpretation of my own spoken accent.)

The only time I recall being taken aback by someone else's pronunciation was in the name Tom Bombadil. I had always pronounced this with emphasis on the first syllable: BOM-ba-dill. Then I heard a friend put the emphasis on the second syllable: bomb-BADDLE. I actually corrected him before I realized that I had no idea what was correct. I still don't. For the most part, I let the names sing to me from the page in my own accent, and leave it at that. For the most part! Many of the movie pronunciations have taken up permanent residence in my ear, and will never depart. Luckily, this is one of the things that P.J. made a sincere effort to get right, as much as possible.

As for the pronunciation of the name Tolkien, I have always said TOLL-kin rather than TOLL-keen, and usually still do, even though I know better. (or is it TOLL-key-in?)

[Pitchwife]

As the part on pronunciation was left out in the German translation of LotR, I had to work everything out on my own in my first (and second, and third) reading. As Estelyn has said, the i's and au's never were a problem, as they have the same values in the elvish languages as in German, so Isengard was always 'Eezengard' to me, and Sauron 'Sowron'. I don't remember precisely whether I said 'Tseleborn' and 'Tsirdan', but I probably did (according to the latin pronunciation I was taught in school); what I do remember is that I pronounced the th's not as in English, but as aspirated t's (=normal t with a puff of air) - until the short appendix in the Silmarillion (which I read about 2 years later) cleared these matters up.
Stress is interesting, too. I first stressed Minas Tirith on the first and last syllables, Mithrandir on the first, but Aragorn on the last. Even today, I say PEL-lenor and PAL-lantír, when I don't think about it.
Oh yes, and Sméagol was more or less SMAY-a-goll to me, so I found it very nassty to hear him called 'Smeegle' in the Bakshi movie. If I understand Tolkien right, the correct thing is somewhere inbetween. Funny - I should have got it right from the start, as the Anglo-Saxon 'éa' and 'éo' both occur in my native dialect (North-east Bavarian)!
Last not least, I too first pronounced the Prof himself TOLL-kee-en, until I read in the Carpenter biography that his name was derived from German 'tollkühn' - so TOLL-keen, 2 syllables not 3, was the only logical thing.

Today, Celeborn has been Keleborn and Minas Tirith Mee-nas Tee-riþ for so long that I tend to find mispronunciations (my own and by others) a bit annoying, seeing that the Prof did his best to explain how it should be; and I certainly get more 'phonæsthetic pleasure' from the correct versions.
Now, would a re-read, consciously reverting to my initial mispronunciations, bring me a flashback of first-reading magic? I doubt it, but it may be worth a try. Ask me again in a couple of months!

[Hakon]

I think I prefer it as Seleborn and Sirdan rather than Keleborn and Kirdan. For all of them I prefer the soft C. It just flows better in my opinion. I keep thinking back to when I first read the Chronicles of Narnia and I pronounced the character Reepicheep's name as Re-ship. I still kind of dislike the proper pronunciation because it just is not how I originally viewed it. It is the same for all of Tolkien's work..

[Bêthberry]

This thread has reminded me of Lalaith's Cellar Door thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10912&highlight=cellar+door). There are a couple of remarks there that I think are particularly apt here.


I think Tolkien used "cellar door" there to describe a kind of generic moment of aural appreciation, and he meant that Welsh was full of those kind of 'moments'.
I rarely hear Welsh spoken, but I do love the accent.

I've always enjoyed Lalaith's comments, however rare. :)

And here's a quote from Tolkien himself, provided by Piosennial, who always has her finger on a good quote:


The basic pleasure in the phonetic elements of a language and in the style of their patterns, and then in a higher dimension, pleasure in the association of these word-forms with meanings, is of fundamental importance. This pleasure is quite distinct from the practical knowledge of a language, and not the same as an analytic understanding of its structure. It is simpler, deeper-rooted, and yet more immediate than the enjoyment of literature. Thought it may be allied to some of the elements in the appreciation of verse, it does not need any poets, other than the nameless artists who composed the language. It can be strongly felt in the simple contemplation of vocabulary, or even in a string of names. ...Most English-speaking people, for instance, will admit that *cellar door* is 'beautiful,' especially if dissociated from its sense (and from its spelling). More beautiful that, say, *sky*, and far more beautiful than *beautiful*, Well then, in Welsh, for me *cellar doors* are extraordinarily frequent, and moving to the higher dimension, the words in which there is pleasure in the contemplation of the association of form and sense are abundant.

full ref provided by pio: J.R.R. Tolkien "English and Welsh" (lecture, 10/21/55) published in - Angles and Britons: O'Donnell Lectures (1963) and reprinted in: The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays(1983) by J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Christopher Tolkien.

And, thinking of Pitchwife's comment here, there's also another related thread about Pelennor Fields, too, but alas I haven't the time now to find it.

Pleasure in the sound and musicality of language is so rarely discussed these days, or considered. As to the right and wrong of pronunciation, why, it's possible--or was once before universal media--to walk the mews and alleyways of London and hear different pronunciations every two or three blocks. I know a linguist who placed an English exile living here in Canada to within three blocks of his birthplace just listening to his own speech patterns. As I recall, he was not amused!

It's highly unlikely, I would think, that Tolkien as a philologist, would hold to the sole standard of "The Queen's English."

[Formendacil]

Fascinating topic, Davem, I must say...

Perhaps I was lucky as a youth (oh... does that sound pretentious! :p ) that, having swarmed through LotR and the Appendices, I was on immediately to the Silm, and ended up romping happily through that (though with the usual troubles of distinguishing all those "Fins" from each other), and though I don't recall the story or the prose sinking in much on the first read, the "Guide to Pronunciation" did.

I'll be honest, though... it was still a few read-throughs ere Seleborn had become Celeborn or Sírdan Círdan. It was even longer before sore old Soron had become Sauron, and Minus Tirith (as opposed to Plus Tirith) had become Minas Tirith. And then there were the Dúnedane--Vikings from old Arthedenmark!

:D

Still, by the ripe old age of 14 when the movies came out, I was sufficiently inculcated in the "proper" pronunciation of those words that I was already correcting the pronunciations of other friends who, anticipating the movies, were talking about Seleborn and Soron.

One of the reasons, I think, that I liked Tolkien at that age, and what still holds one of the attractions for me is, precisely, the linguistic aspect. As someone who sings quite a lot of Ecclesiastical Latin on a regular basis, but who spent last year learning Latin with a Classical pronouncer, I'm particularly susceptible, at this point, to the difference that a hard "C" makes versus a soft "C." Although Tolkien may not have condemned those who pronounce the names wrong--a knowing bit of tolerance from the expert there--I like to think that, even if it doesn't matter, I'm getting a better, more authentic, experience by reading the words the way they "actually" sounded in Middle-earth.

[davem]

I wonder how many of us who choose to alter our original (mis)pronunciations do so because we desire to 'get it right', & how many of us do it because we want to conform (ie, because we don't want to embarrass ourselves in front of those 'in the know')? In the light of the Cellar Door thing, I think one could argue that, just as Sellador is more aesthetically pleasing than 'kellador', so Seleborn sounds better than Keleborn (though on purely aesthetic terms 'Teleporno' is possibly more pleasing than either?) If one finds the sound of Keleborn ugly (for whatever idiosyncratic reasons), & Seleborn attractive, shouldn't one go with Seleborn, as Elves, surely, should have names which reflect in the reader's mind their essential beauty?

Of course, one may feel that Soron is a more pleasing sound than Sowron, & surely the Dark Lord's name should evoke distaste - so we have a further complication to add:

1) Is there something specially evocative for you about your original pronunciations, & should you retain them for that reason?

2) Should you strive for authenticity, in order to experience the story as the Author intended?

or

3) Should you tailor your chosen pronunciation of the name to what is evocative of the thing named - ie if you feel Seleborn is more beautiful a sound than Keleborn, shouldn't you go with that, whether or not you read it that way initially? And if you find Sowron an uglier sound that Soron (particularly if you find 'Soron' pleasing), shouldn't you go with Sowron - 'cos bad guys should have nasty sounding names which evoke in your mind an essential aspect of their nature?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In real life, when I am in doubt, I ask a person just how their name is pronounced or spelled. That is a matter of respect for me, perhaps a form of politeness. I would say that carries over to my reading; I do make an effort to correct my pronunciation if I know the right one, even if it doesn't come easy at first. I have to make a conscious effort to say "Keleborn", and I actually like "Seleborn" better, but when it comes to names of others, I feel that my preference is not the decisive factor, so I practice the correct one till it comes naturally (hopefully someday!).

[davem]

From 1968 onwards Allen & Unwin published a single volume paperback of LotR (with Pauline Baynes wonderful cover painting). What's interesting about this edition in the context of this thread is that this it uses the Second Edition text, in the Foreword of which the footnote guide (from the First ed. Foreword as given above) to pronunciation is absent - so as with all the Second Edition LotR's there is nothing to help the reader in pronouncing the names until after they've finished the story & get to the Appendices - so unless you're someone who reads the Appendices first, you will have read the story & come up with your own pronunciations before you get to the correct ones - but this p/b edition is even more interesting (& less useful) in this context, as it omits all the Appendices except the Tale of Aragorn & Arwen from Appendix A - so you could read the whole book & never realise there was a 'correct' way to pronounce the names.

Two things to notice further - one, this edition appeared during Tolkien's lifetime, & two, there is a note appended to the Foreword which states:

"The index & all but one of the numerous appendices have been omitted. Though they contain much information that has proved very interesting to many readers, only a small part is necessary to the reading of the tale"

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

In real life, when I am in doubt, I ask a person just how their name is pronounced or spelled. That is a matter of respect for me, perhaps a form of politeness. I would say that carries over to my reading; I do make an effort to correct my pronunciation if I know the right one, even if it doesn't come easy at first. I have to make a conscious effort to say "Keleborn", and I actually like "Seleborn" better, but when it comes to names of others, I feel that my preference is not the decisive factor, so I practice the correct one till it comes naturally (hopefully someday!).

That's a good point. Heaven knows, I know plenty of people with what one might call "very ethnic" last names who do not pronounce them as they would be pronounced in "the old country," and that has been the case for many generations. (Or as someone once put it, the name may be spelled "Przybylski," but you can pronounce it "Smith" if you want to.) I have also known people who are quite aware of the "correct" pronunciation of their given name, but choose for personal reasons to pronounce it otherwise. Some change the spelling, and I think it may be for the same reason, to "make it their own," rather than something that was foisted on them when they were unable to choose for themselves. I suppose Tolkien created the notion of the self-chosen "nickname" among the Elves for similar reasons. And I also suppose that some Elves might deliberately "mispronounce" their names to make it more unique, something of their own choosing (or possibly to annoy their parents :D). Tolkien, of course, would not tell us if they do or don't, but as he did tell us that the Elven languages evolved over time, I would tend to think that they would be subject to change through such personal idiosyncrasies as well.

Oh, and for myself, as an 11 year old, I first read Seleborn, but when I became aware of the Keleborn pronunciation, I had no problem accepting it. Seleborn always made me think of cellophane, or celery, and both seemed totally ridiculous. To my ear, Keleborn as a sound was more pleasing to the ear (and the brain), but the Celeborn spelling more pleasing to the eye.

[Eönwë]

2) Should you strive for authenticity, in order to experience the story as the Author intended?

or

3) Should you tailor your chosen pronunciation of the name to what is evocative of the thing named

Well, in my case, I always try to fix the pronounciation and often find that it the the given one fits much better then the one I had formed. So, to me, Keleborn sounds just as good as Seleborn (and Celeborn looks nicer when written down), and Kirith Ungol sounds much harsher than Sirith Ungol (thouh maybe less piercing). However, I find it harder to change the pronounciation of some characters, especially those that I like more (maybe there is some sort of subconscious attachment), such as Cirdan (which I still automatically pronounce Sirdan) and Eönwë (Which I find hard not to pronounce "ee-ON-way").

But I suppose what people find more aesthetically pleasing to the ear varies. As for whether we should go for the author's offical pronounciation or the one that we like more, do you really want to start a whole canonicity thread again? :p

[Pitchwife]

Eönwë (Which I find hard not to pronounce "ee-ON-way").
You have the perfect right to pronounce your own name anyway you like, of course! As long as you don't pronounce it as 'Hay-on-Wye'...;)

[Eönwë]

As long as you don't pronounce it as 'Hay-on-Wye'...;)
Funnily enough, I just passed through there when I went on holiday. I also past a place called Crickhowell. Don't tell me you read that right the first time ;).

[Eönwë]

I just had a thought about the whole "C" vs. "K" in terms of letters used for names. "C", though pronounced exactly the same as "K", has the connotation of being softer, at least to me, maybe because it can be changed into an "s" sound in English. "C" seems softer, smoother, and more elegant. "K" on the other hand seems more raw and powerful, and slightly harsher than "C". So it seems to me that Elvish, for example, should use "C" and Dwarvish, for example, should use "K".

I think that Tolkien thought, the same, because looking through wordlists on Ardalambion, you can see that except in primitive Elvish, which seems a much more to me a much more "raw" language, Elvish languages favour the letter "C" over "K". On the other hand, Khuzdul, Adûnaic, and the Orkish all use "K" instead of "C". As well as this, so does Valarin, which sounds like a very raw and powerful language.

The same goes with the "ch/kh" usage. Again, "ch" looks much more soft than "kh", which definately looks harsher, and we see a similar pattern. Tolkien gives "kh" and "ch" the same value, but I always imagine the "ch" to be a bit softer (going towards "gh", but still much more like "kh"), whereas the "kh" is pronounced harder. The sound "gh" is also related, as the other extreme (to "kh"), which is used in Orkish. "Kh" is used in Adûnaic and Khuzdul, and "ch" is used in Elvish. Valarin uses all three.

Just an idea.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I second Eönwë. And there is also the thing to it - at least with me I think it was that way - that "c" is used in Latin even in words which could be easily transcribed with "k" (like in "curriculum"), and thus, for an European, I guess (and maybe for others too), it preserves the image of "ancient forgotten culture with its beautiful statues and stuff like that". It has the feeling of the "high and noble" language.

[Galin]

Tolkien specifically wrote of Quenya (Letter 144, 1954): 'The archaic language of lore is meant to be a kind of 'Elven-latin', and by transcribing it into a spelling closely resembling that of Latin (except that y is only used as a consonant, as y in E. Yes) the similarity to Latin is increased ocularly.'

However Cirith Ungol, for instance, is not Quenya or the 'Elven-latin', and in draft letter 187 (1956) JRRT explained: 'It was only in the last stages that (in spite of my son's protests: he still holds that no one will ever pronounce Cirith right, it appears as Kirith in his map, as formerly also in the text) I decided to be 'consistent' and spell Elvish names and words throughout without k. There are no doubt other variations...'

[Pitchwife]

Apart from internal consistency of spelling between the Elven languages, Tolkien's decision to use c for k in Sindarin names as well may also have been influenced by the (modern) orthography of Welsh, the language on which Sindarin was modelled.

[Holbytlass]

I, too, originally pronounced Cirdain, Celeborn with the soft "c" and since learning the correct pronunciation I prefer the hard "k". As someone had ealier mentioned it gives a toughness to the character.

I have a hard time pronouncing Gandalf properly with the stress on the second syllable along with Sauron-(sow part) much as I find hard saying the girls' name Kayley. I apologize to those with the name and mean no disrespect it just feels like I'm saying Kelly in an exagerrated and uncomfortable way.

I do insist on saying it properly both as a "I'm part of the club" :D and as respect to someone's hard work especially when given tips.

Oh and the "Smak".......I Love it!! I'm still laughing about it.

[Mithalwen]

*Holby!!! Squeals with delight!*

I am unsuprisingly perhaps inconsistent. I read the books before absorbing the correct punctuation - which is rather a joyless way to start a novel (though I do look at instructions before attempting to assemble flat-packs!). However thanks to repeated listening of the BBC Radio series with its Christopher Tolkien assisted pronunciation. and his own recordings of the Silmarillion, I have relearnt and have no problems now with Celeborn, Feanor, Sauron. However it takes real mental effort to remember to say Kir (like the drink)-dan rather than Sir Dan.

[Pitchwife]

I have a hard time pronouncing Gandalf properly with the stress on the second syllable
You mean, GandALF? That sounds odd to me...

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Seeing Eru on a licence plate the other day made me think of this thread.

Ever since I first read about Eru, I've always pronounced it "Oo-Roo". I do not know whether that's how it's really pronounced, but it seemed to work for me and Laurinque. On second thought, when I looked at the spelling again, I read it as "Eh-roo". Does anyone know how it's supposed to be pronounced?

[Laurinquë]

Ever since I first read about Eru, I've always pronounced it "Oo-Roo". I do not know whether that's how it's really pronounced, but it seemed to work for me and Laurinque. On second thought, when I looked at the spelling again, I read it as "Eh-roo". Does anyone know how it's supposed to be pronounced

TheGreatElvenWarrior taught me everything I know about Tolkien; therefore I pronounce it Oo-Roo as well. What ever she said, I said.

However, my mother has completely different ideas on the pronunciation matter. She read LotR back in the '60s (and cannot recall it all that well) and pronounces Saruman as Sir-ah-nam, like the country, and Sauron as Sar-Ron among other things. I don't know where she came up with these but personally I find this rather charming; it's just creative pronunciation and part of the fun of reading Tolkien. On the other hand, it would be most interesting to see if anyone has heard these pronounced this way before, my mother may not be as creative as I think!

But before I get too far I should mention that my open ideas about pronunciation most likely stem from my utter inability to understand the sound of a word without hearing it said. I have always had a hard time with that but it wasn't too apparent until I tried to start wrapping my tongue around The Fellowship of the Ring. I seem to remember that I was a great source of amusement to TGEW. :rolleyes:

[Galin]

There I was quoting Letters when Appendix E also notes: 'The High-elven Quenya has been spelt as much like Latin as its sounds allowed. For this reason c has been preferred to k in both Eldarin languages.'

Tolkien hid that right in front of me ;)

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

TheGreatElvenWarrior taught me everything I know about Tolkien; therefore I pronounce it Oo-Roo as well. What ever she said, I said. I did not teach you everything you know about Tolkien. I believe that the Downer Newspaper did.



But before I get too far I should mention that my open ideas about pronunciation most likely stem from my utter inability to understand the sound of a word without hearing it said. I have always had a hard time with that but it wasn't too apparent until I tried to start wrapping my tongue around The Fellowship of the Ring. I seem to remember that I was a great source of amusement to TGEW. :rolleyes:You heard me saying names while you were reading the Fellowship, I believe I would ask you something like Have you read about the Balrog yet? and you hadn't, I probably spoiled it for you. And, what can I say, you're amusing!

Back on topic, I originally pronounced Feanor as FEE-nor, and not as Feah-nor. Still can't figure out how to pronounce Meaglin correctly...

[Galin]

(...) Still can't figure out how to pronounce Meaglin correctly...

But it's Maeglin rather (-ae- not -ea-). So if you mean the diphthong, it is a combination of the individual vowels a-e (one syllable). Or even easier: 'but ae may be pronounced in the same way as ai' -- and ai has the sound of English eye.

Assuming that wasn't just a typo, that is :)

[Lalwendë]

I have to admit to taking wicked delight in wilfully pronouncing the names as I see fit. The world is full of pedants these days and I'd rather come down on the side of pleasure than that of being smugly correct.

Mispronouncing the names in a book is hardly crime of the century anyway, and I think we only force ourselves to do it to 'fit in', it's a completely different thing to making the effort in learning how to pronounce a real person's difficult name (says she, feeling proud at having learnt some Polish and Kenyan names today ;)). Davem is correct that forcing yourself to read a certain name in a book in a prescribed way, especially one as long as Lord of the Rings, can somewhat spoil your reading experience.

And yes, I pronounce it "tol-kin" :p

[Galin]

The world is full of pedants these days and I'd rather come down on the side of pleasure than that of being smugly correct. Mispronouncing the names in a book is hardly crime of the century anyway, and I think we only force ourselves to do it to 'fit in',...'

I can't include myself in this 'we'. Heck, I don't know anyone within earshot who cares enough about Tolkien to talk about his tales, and nobody can hear you on the web (in these types of forums anyway).

Anyway, I would guess there are a number of people who simply want, or like, to get it right, perhaps because (externally) they know Tolkien put a lot of time and effort into creating nomenclature, and into creating the specific sounds of each language.

Also, to my mind it seems a way for readers to further engage with, and thus further enjoy, Middle-earth. If one likes Seleborn, that's obviously fine, if it enhances one's reading, fine again -- so too if it enhances one's reading to try to say Keleborn (assuming it's a change), simply because he or she 'knows' or imagines that that's how folks in the Secondary World said it.

I haven't met any smug correctors (yet). The matter seems to come up in threads on the web often enough, but there people are usually wondering how the names are supposed to be said and heard (which implies they might like some help), or are outright asking about proper pronunciation. And I can also understand the desire (at least) for good pronunciation at conventions for example, or Tolkien-related events -- for guests speakers, for instance. But at conventions or social events, one is probably not reading the book, especially aloud, in any case.

My cat used to react everytime I said Túna. He must have approved of my pronunciation ;)

[Inziladun]

I'm one of those who feels I have to get my pronunciations in line with Tolkien's, if only to satify my persnickitiness.
I don't judge others for getting them wrong, however. Appreciation and understanding of the subject matter are much more important than knowing not to say Sore-on or Sirith Ungol.

[Lalwendë]

I haven't met any smug correctors (yet). The matter seems to come up in threads on the web often enough, but there people are usually wondering how the names are supposed to be said and heard (which implies they might like some help), or are outright asking about proper pronunciation. And I can also understand the desire (at least) for good pronunciation at conventions for example, or Tolkien-related events -- for guests speakers, for instance. But at conventions or social events, one is probably not reading the book, especially aloud, in any case.

My cat used to react everytime I said Túna. He must have approved of my pronunciation ;)

Oh yes, if you go to Oxonmoot you have to watch more than your Ps and Qs, you also have to watch your Cs and Ks ;)

Mind it was funny to see the signs around Somerville College that said "Tolkein Convention" all altered in angry writing to "TOLKIEN!" - you could almost hear the person who had corrected them tutting ;)

[Mnemosyne]

I only judge a pronunciation that doesn't match up with Tolkien's guidelines when the speaker is in a field that requires some attention to pronunciation.

I don't know how my reaction would be for a mispronunciation in, say, a lecture that's not about languages, but if it's an adaptation, say, or a musical performance... :mad:

Whenever you're performing something in a foreign language, the least you can do is respect said language enough to pronounce it right or as close to right as you can manage. Even if you don't say it that way in real life.

Now, what gets really interesting is when it appears that Tolkien does not follow his own rules. What's one to do then?

[Eönwë]

Now, what gets really interesting is when it appears that Tolkien does not follow his own rules. What's one to do then?

Well, I think it depends on who you're talking to and it what context.

For example, if I talk to someone (especially someone who isn't as much of a fan as me) about one of Tolkien's characters, I'm less likely to pronounce it with a trilled "r", etc., because it would sound strange because I don't normally trill my "r"s.

However, if I'm reading the book aloud, or trying to pronounce something in Elvish, or talking to someone with more Tolkien expertise than me (I assume, I don't think I know anyone who has read more than TH, LOTR and the Silm), then I'd probably try my best to pronounce it right.

As well as this, one reason I've thought of for my preference of Sirdan over Kirdan could be that the "s" sound makes it more sibilant, which makes it more sea-ish, at least to me.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I really do make an effort to pronounce things correctly. Or at least how I think is the correct way of pronouncing. For the longest time I was pronouncing Feanor 'FEE-nor'.

[Mirkgirl]

Interesting thread... I first read the woks in Bulgarian and as it uses Cyrillic, my only chance was to trust the transliteration... which was Seleborn etc. Only years after did I understand my mistake... and Keleborn still sounds unnatural to me.

I think with books one is in their right to mispronounce or misinterpert their characters, so that they fit the inner sight better. I don't feel oblidged to follow the right pronounciation or to change the image I had in my head for some character or place, just because a second close read proved that it is wrong. A book is a personal experience (unless you are doing it for research) and if being right makes it less enjoyable, being wrong is the way to be.

With real people it is something else... althou I can say by personal experience, it is easier to agree with the majority of a country about how you say your name.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Instead of degrading my experience when I pronounce the names correctly, it enhances my reading. Then I know that that is the way to say something and I can really get my head into it. I guess that there are some things that I think don't sound right when pronounced correctly, such as Isengard. I don't think it's supposed to be pronounced the way I pronounce it, but I just can't get it into my head to say it any other way. So it stays how it is.

[davem]

The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a
visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progenitive. It is at once more universal and more poignantly particular. If it speaks of bread or wine or stone or tree, it appeals to the whole ofthese things, to their ideas; yet each hearer will give to them a peculiar personal embodimentin his imagination. Should the story say “he ate bread,” the dramatic producer or painter canonly show ”a piece of bread” according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story willthink of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own. If a story says “he climbed a
hill and saw a river in the valley below,” the illustrator may catch, or nearly catch, his ownvision of such a scene; but every hearer of the words will have his own picture, and it willbe made out of all the hills and rivers and dales he has ever seen, but especially out of TheHill, The River, The Valley which were for him the first embodiment of the word.Tolkien: On Fairy Stories

This is the whole point, for me - the reader as 'co-creator' of the story, & this is the difference between drama & literature. Drama, whether on stage or film, is given to the viewer - the look, the sounds, the words & their pronunciation - the viewer is effectively a passive observer with no control or input into the experience. Literature on the other hand is a participatory event - the characters look & sound how the reader decides, their names are pronounced by the reader, not the writer. The writer must be aware of this too. And this personalises the experience of the story - the Lord of the Rings I experience when I read is different to the one you experience when you read it - because its full of my Hills, Rivers & Valleys. Pronunciation of names of people & places is part of that personal experience, & the more we attempt to achieve a 'proper' uniform pronunciation, or single, agreed picture of a place or character, the more detatched we become from that unique experience of the story. If it was possible to see the characters & places of Middle-earth exactly as Tolkien himself saw them should we all make ourselves see them in that way? In the excerpt I gave earlier from OFS Tolkien seems to argue that would actually be a mistake, because the reader would have no input into the experience of the Story & therefore it would not touch them in the same way. Why is the pronunciation of names different from the images of places & characters - Tolkien effectively states that the reader must be free to imagine the world & its inhabitants as they will for the story to work, & I can't see how the pronunciation of names & words is a different case.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Ha, brilliant point, davem. I consider myself knowing On Fairy Stories very well and basically remembering something from it all the time, even this particular part (I have always applied that one to criticise the movies :p ), but it never occured to me to apply it in this way. Once again a proof of how well can a company of people contribute while single person's thinking always remains limited.

Let me just note, I have never thought that Tolkien was so close in his thoughts to the reader-response criticism - in the light of this, this certainly is something related. Just, like, I never thought of that.

But anyway, that means, long live Tsirith Ungol! (As that's the one, of all of them, which I just cannot discard :) )

[Eönwë]

Tolkien effectively states that the reader must be free to imagine the world & its inhabitants as they will for the story to work, & I can't see how the pronunciation of names & words is a different case.

Not to mention the fact that the hobbits (even Frodo), who are the "authors" of the story, probably didn't pronounce the place names 100% correctly either. And what is correct anyway? Isn't the most commonly used pronunciation the accepted one after all?

[davem]

I consider myself knowing On Fairy Stories very well and basically remembering something from it all the time, even this particular part (I have always applied that one to criticise the movies :p )

Its kind of odd to read reviews of the movies where people comment that 'Jacksons' Shire/Moria/Minas Tirith/....... (fill in the blank) was exactly/not at all as I imagined it', & are happy to accept that different people will 'see' Middle-earth in different ways, but when it comes to pronunciation of names & words people simply accept that because Jackson got in 'experts' to give cast & crew the correct pronunciations they must be accepted - I rarely if ever hear the comment 'The cast's pronunciation of 'Minas Tirith'/ Legolas/(fitb) was exactly/not at all as I imagined it'. Its almost as if some people are afraid to get it wrong (which seems to imply that reading the books is, or involves, a test of some kind, which the reader can either pass or fail).

My own position is that just as one is free to imagine (in fact, according to Tolkien quoted earlier, will both inevitably & rightly imagine) the world of the story in their own unique way, which will bring it alive for them in a way that no illustration or dramatisation could, so they must be free to 'hear' that world as they will - for the same reason. Of course, one is limited by the text to some degree - one may pronounce 'Feanor' as Fee-an-or, Fay-an-or or Fee-nor but one would not pronounce it 'Stephen'.

[Mnemosyne]

...but when it comes to pronunciation of names & words people simply accept that because Jackson got in 'experts' to give cast & crew the correct pronunciations they must be accepted - I rarely if ever hear the comment 'The cast's pronunciation of 'Minas Tirith'/ Legolas/(fitb) was exactly/not at all as I imagined it'. Its almost as if some people are afraid to get it wrong (which seems to imply that reading the books is, or involves, a test of some kind, which the reader can either pass or fail).

This would be an acceptable nitpick if the cast's pronunciations were always correct and included a general concept of accent marks and diareses. (Still waiting on the extra syllable in "Earendil".) As it is I cringe most at whenever Frolijah says "Mohdoh," considering that book!Frodo is supposed to be canonically good at foreign sounds.

Because Tolkien gave specific rules on pronuncation, I think a better parallel would be to compare pronunciation to, say, the doors at Moria, where we're given a specific drawing as to how it looked. If the Jackson films had deviated from that at all, claiming that it was Frodo's faulty memory reconstructing it (which would be well within their rights, since Moria is explicitly called Moria ['black shadow', only used post-Balrog] on the door), there would have been so much howling!

Although to be fair the parallel isn't perfect as the pronunciation rules come from the Appendices and not from the text itself, and the Appendices are specifically only for those who really want to know more.

Ultimately I think the whole thing is a bunch of pedantry as we geeks try to one-up each other. As I said earlier, I personally try to get my own pronunciation as close to the recommended ones as possible, but that's because I am a pedant and a linguistics geek to boot. If you want to pronounce them differently that's fine... but woe to you if you want to market that pronunciation!

Mirkgirl's points are actually really good ones: to what extent have translators adapted spellings to fit with pronunciations? Does Tolkien's translator's guide give any hints?


P.S. to Eonwe... Frodo at least probably got his transcriptions and pronunciations right; the other hobbits however tended to have really bad Shire accents when it came to the Elvish tongues.

[davem]

Because Tolkien gave specific rules on pronuncation, I think a better parallel would be to compare pronunciation to, say, the doors at Moria, where we're given a specific drawing as to how it looked. .

Except... the doors may have looked right, but to me they seemed too small - I envisioned them to be about twice the size on reading the book. Still, that's not a problem for me, as I'm fairly fine with any concept of Middle-earth either visual or 'audial', as an individual take.

And if you go with the Translator Conceit, then even Tolkien the Translator could have been wrong about the correct pronunciation of languages which disappeared thousands of years ago. In fact, one could argue that individual pronunciations, avoiding the idea of 'correct/incorrect' fit that idea better than the kind of 'geekish' precision you're talking about. I note that we don't worry about the 'correct' pronunciation of the names in Homer or Malory ('You say 'Lance-e-lot', I say 'Launce-e-lot'').


Ultimately I think the whole thing is a bunch of pedantry as we geeks try to one-up each other. As I said earlier, I personally try to get my own pronunciation as close to the recommended ones as possible, but that's because I am a pedant and a linguistics geek to boot. If you want to pronounce them differently that's fine... but woe to you if you want to market that pronunciation!

I think the problem is that it can exclude the reader who doesn't have the time (or inclination) to study the subject of Tolkienian linguistics, & make then feel 'second class citizens' in Middle-earth, & I'm sure it must annoy those who really don't like the 'correct' pronunciations & feel happier & more at home with their own.

As to 'marketing my pronunciations' - that's exactly the opposite of what I'm advocating - I'm for going with what feels right for the individual.

[Mnemosyne]

davem, by "marketing" I meant such things as adaptations with an audio component and/or settings of Tolkien songs, not simply telling people to pronounce things "your way"--things that actually make money off the notion that this adheres to Tolkien in the details.

And if we want to talk about making people feel like second class fans, pronunciation pedantry pales compared to, "You haven't read x?!?" (Although pronunciation is perhaps the most obvious form of this.) I first set out to read the Silm because people were telling me I still wasn't a true Tolkien fan yet.

You actually do have a very interesting point on the "reconstructed" pronunciations... it rather reminds me of how you're "supposed" to pronounce classical Latin and Greek. We all know that this may be nothing like how it's actually pronounced, but we agree on it for clarity's sake. This is also why I'm so intrigued by words like "Nargothrond," which are pronounced one way according to the "official" rules but always scan differently in the Lays. One is tempted to say that there are exceptions, even in Elvish, that we will never know about.

[davem]

davem, by "marketing" I meant such things as adaptations with an audio component and/or settings of Tolkien songs, not simply telling people to pronounce things "your way"--things that actually make money off the notion that this adheres to Tolkien in the details.



I'm still intrigued as to why 'correct' pronunciation is so important - much more so than imagery - after all, Tolkien did produce illustrations of Middle-earth, for TH, LotR & The Si, but no-one seems to bother if an illustrator goes their own way & ignores Tolkien's own imagery in favour of their own. Take a look at these which were issud as a stamp set a few years ago: http://www.norphil.co.uk/2004/2004images/lotrblokbull.jpg

Check the second row - pic 1 is Orthanc, pic 3 is Barad-dur, pic 4 is Minas(Mynas ;) ) Tirith. That's how Tolkien visualised those places. Should we be bound by them, & make ourselves see those places in the way he depicted them? I'd say, no, because while they may have worked for Tolkien they won't work for most of his readers. If its ok to visualise a place in the story in your own way, then why is thee an issue with pronouncing the names in your own way?

[Mnemosyne]

Depends. The difficulty is that the pronunciation guides were published as part of Lord of the Rings, albeit in the Appendices. Which means that they are not placed nearly as high on the hierarchy of accuracy as, say, the doors to Moria or the maps or the fact that Aragorn had grey eyes.

But how many visual cues about Middle-earth came from Tolkien during his lifetime?

I think the difference is that envisioning something from a book takes much more imagination--and thus much more effort and wiggle room--for the reader than simply pronouncing a foreign word. You're given more liberty simply because of the differences in medium (so, we could have two completely different-looking, but equally canonical "Frodo"s but however we say his name it's going to sound pretty similar).

The other thing is that we're given guidelines--which Tolkien says we don't have to follow if we don't want to!--in the books themselves, and we know that Tolkien expended a lot more effort into languages than into illustrating (though he spent a lot on both!).

What would be really interesting now would be to hop 20 years or so down the road and see how much the "your mileage may vary" attitude towards mental pictures remains as more and more people enter the fandom with the Jackson films ingrained in their heads.

[davem]

Depends. The difficulty is that the pronunciation guides were published as part of Lord of the Rings, albeit in the Appendices. Which means that they are not placed nearly as high on the hierarchy of accuracy as, say, the doors to Moria or the maps or the fact that Aragorn had grey eyes.

And the Appendices are optional reading (& as I pointed out previously, there was a single volume edition of LotR published during Tolkien's lifetime which omitted the Appendices altogether apart from The Tale of Aragorn & Arwen). This being the case, I asked, firstly, is one's experience of the story lessened in some way if one does not read the Appendices & has no idea of the 'correct' pronunciation of the story, & secondly, if one does read & 'obey' the pronunciation guide in the Appendices, is one's experience of the story 'enhanced' by that, or does the sacrifice of one's own original pronunciations actually take something of that original experience away?

But how many visual cues about Middle-earth came from Tolkien during his lifetime?

And if Allen & Unwin had decided that the Appendices were an unnecessary part of the book & simply refused to print them - or Tolkien hadn't been able to bring them into publishable form - wouldn't the pronunciations be as optional as the illustrations?


What would be really interesting now would be to hop 20 years or so down the road and see how much the "your mileage may vary" attitude towards mental pictures remains as more and more people enter the fandom with the Jackson films ingrained in their heads.

It would - and also to what extent the video games affect that mental imagery too - & in many other ways besides the simple pictures. I haven't played any of them (or intend to) but I notice that there are a lot more prominent female characters in the games, a lot more magic users (& casual use of magic), & I even read a report that mixed race (ie human-elf, hobbit-dwarf, etc, etc) & same sex relationships are options in the game world too. All these things affect one's perceptions of the world of M-e & the way one conceives/visualises it. Beyond that, the screenshots I've seen depict a countryside & landscape which is often subtly (& sometimes not so subtly at all) different to the English countryside that inspired Tolkien - in fact when I look at said screenshots I'm reminded much more of pictures of North American countryside with a 'New Zealandish' overlay inspired by the movies. My Middle-earth is an English Middle-earth & looks like the landscapes I know & is nothing like the game world. What this means is that, yes, the look of Middle-earth is becoming incresingly as 'fixed' as the sound, & the reader has less & less freedom to participate in the creation of Middle-earth in their own mind. Many readers from now on will only have the 'correct' pronunciation in their heads because they will come to the books via the movies & the games. I would argue that their whole experience will be lessened by that - they will get the pronunciation right, but only because they will never have had the freedom to get it 'wrong'. Increasingly we will achieve a uniform sound & vision of Middle-earth. More & more manifestations of M-e will actually result in a more precisely defined & limited experience - all in the name of 'authenticity'.

This is worse than Mordor!' said Sam. 'Much worse in a way. It comes home to you, as they say; because it is home, and you remember it before it was all ruined.'

[Mnemosyne]

And the Appendices are optional reading (& as I pointed out previously, there was a single volume edition of LotR published during Tolkien's lifetime which omitted the Appendices altogether apart from The Tale of Aragorn & Arwen). This being the case, I asked, firstly, is one's experience of the story lessened in some way if one does not read the Appendices & has no idea of the 'correct' pronunciation of the story, & secondly, if one does read & 'obey' the pronunciation guide in the Appendices, is one's experience of the story 'enhanced' by that, or does the sacrifice of one's own original pronunciations actually take something of that original experience away?

No, not of the story. But one could argue that one's experience of the world is different since the languages provide such a grounding.

I would not say that the experience is "enhanced" or "detracted" if a reader chooses to adopt Tolkien's pronunciations (which is ultimately what he says the point of the Appendices is--to provide you with more information if you want it), merely altered. And honestly there's so little of the original experience that you can ever get back on a second reading, simply because you already know what happens.

Similarly, does knowledge of the Silm enhance or detract a reader's experience of rereading LotR?

I think that ultimately because of the nature of knowledge you can only go deeper when you're rereading LotR, even if you don't intend to--unless you get Alzheimer's.

And if Allen & Unwin had decided that the Appendices were an unnecessary part of the book & simply refused to print them - or Tolkien hadn't been able to bring them into publishable form - wouldn't the pronunciations be as optional as the illustrations?

Absolutely. But they were published, and when you consider the extent to which Tolkien himself considered things published as "set in stone" it makes sense that they get this status. I'm still very intrigued by the completely different natures of all the Appendices, due to the fact that they were somewhat rushed to print--how in one you get some very English-looking "Real Shire Month" names and how in another you learn that the "Real Shire" sounded nothing like English.

If Tolkien had had more time to dither about these, because A&U rejected them, they would be completely different from what they are. But once they got published Tolkien tried his best to treat them as they were as set in stone. So I think that the pronunciations do require a somewhat elevated status compared to the illustrations if you're selling your take on it--though not nearly as high as the facts presented in the text itself.

It would - and also to what extent the video games affect that mental imagery too - & in many other ways besides the simple pictures. I haven't played any of them (or intend to) but I notice that there are a lot more prominent female characters in the games, a lot more magic users (& casual use of magic), & I even read a report that mixed race (ie human-elf, hobbit-dwarf, etc, etc) & same sex relationships are options in the game world too. All these things affect one's perceptions of the world of M-e & the way one conceives/visualises it.

I'm not terribly concerned about the video games, actually--most of the people I've talked to IRL have been more than willing to admit that it's just a gamerization of Middle-earth and not to be taken seriously, especially when you read the actual books. Just as I'm not concerned that David Wenham is going to strongly affect anyone's reading of Faramir--not for a while at least.

And there are other visualizations that, if made available, would help counteract the monolithicness of the Jacksonian vision. I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.


Beyond that, the screenshots I've seen depict a countryside & landscape which is often subtly (& sometimes not so subtly at all) different to the English countryside that inspired Tolkien - in fact when I look at said screenshots I'm reminded much more of pictures of North American countryside with a 'New Zealandish' overlay inspired by the movies. My Middle-earth is an English Middle-earth & looks like the landscapes I know & is nothing like the game world.

So, what do you think of this situation: someone grows up seeing the landscape as presented in the games and the films, reads the books, and finds that the "actual" Middle-earth is nothing like these on levels of characterization and general mood. S/he then, surmising that Tolkien's landscapes are English since he was English, adapts his/her mental picture to fit along with a more English landscape.

Is this considered better or worse than this reader sticking with his/her original visualizations?

What this means is that, yes, the look of Middle-earth is becoming incresingly as 'fixed' as the sound, & the reader has less & less freedom to participate in the creation of Middle-earth in their own mind. Many readers from now on will only have the 'correct' pronunciation in their heads because they will come to the books via the movies & the games. I would argue that their whole experience will be lessened by that - they will get the pronunciation right, but only because they will never have had the freedom to get it 'wrong'. Increasingly we will achieve a uniform sound & vision of Middle-earth. More & more manifestations of M-e will actually result in a more precisely defined & limited experience - all in the name of 'authenticity'.

I think that more and more manifestations of M-E are actually the best way we can get out of this mess. We cannot return to the innocent halcyon days of Everybody Comes Up With His/Her Own Idea, but if there are enough people who are willing to present more manifestations that go against the visual flow but still fit in with the cues we're given in the books that might be enough for people to begin to realize that what they've been seeing is not what they're limited to. And this is the exact sort of effect that I try to achieve in fan fiction. Unfortunately I think the battle is lost on "right" or "wrong" pronunciations because we're given guidelines that were published during Tolkien's life. Although I know at least one person who read the books after the movies and still chose his own pronunciation that just barely fit into regular English phonetics.

I think you and I at least agree that Middle-earth will always exist somewhere between the text and the reader... we just differ on where the fuzzy borders of that zone stand.

[davem]

No, not of the story. But one could argue that one's experience of the world is different since the languages provide such a grounding.

Different, yes, but ....beyond that its a matter of opinion - the more onw changes in order to conform the more of one's individual participation in co-creation one sacrifices.

Similarly, does knowledge of the Silm enhance or detract a reader's experience of rereading LotR? It obviously alters it - after reading the Silm LotR becomes a 'smaller' thing, just a tiny part of a bigger - but ultimaterly more delimited world. The more we find out about the history of M-e the less freedom we have to imagine thngs into that world. Its the unexplored vistas thing...

But once they got published Tolkien tried his best to treat them as they were as set in stone. So I think that the pronunciations do require a somewhat elevated status compared to the illustrations if you're selling your take on it--though not nearly as high as the facts presented in the text itself.

Except when he got the chance to change them (Riddles in the Dark in TH, the numerous smaller but occasionally significant changes in the 2nd ed of LotR). Tolkien wasn't averse to simply changing or even inventing things on the spot (cf Raynor Unwin's statement that when Pauline Baynes was having a problem with the poster map of LotR she had been commissioned to paint - too much empty space when the map was blown up to that size - Tolkien simply invented some features to fill in the gaps). Tolkien certainly felt freer to play with his creation than many geeks like to admit. Many things - as you've mentioned re the Appendices - don't quite 'fit', & fans seem to prefer to 'invent' complex explanations of their own in a desire for 'consistency' rather than simply acknowledge that Tolkien 'slipped up'.

And there are other visualizations that, if made available, would help counteract the monolithicness of the Jacksonian vision. I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.

I never saw the stage show, but I have the book & the album, & I have to say that it is often an improvement on the more 'conservative' approach taken by the movie makers.


Is this considered better or worse than this reader sticking with his/her original visualizations?
I wouldn't judge them either way - its what works for them. If they are more at home with their original pictures they should stick to them.

I think you and I at least agree that Middle-earth will always exist somewhere between the text and the reader... we just differ on where the fuzzy borders of that zone stand.

But it should be a co-creation. The reader should not feel 'forced' into surrendering ground in order to conform to some 'ideal' - if as a result they lose some of the magic which first attracted them into the secondary world..

[davem]

I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.

For those who haven't seen anything of the stage version - pics: http://www.lotr.com/sights_sounds/character_photographs.php & footage:http://www.lotr.com/sights_sounds/ As I said, I really liked the looked of the show (from the book, album & these clips). I wonder if they shot enough footage to put the whole thing out on DVD?