"And apparently his notes are just vitriolic.

[davem]

Interesting comment from fantasy author Alan Garner in an interview in the Indy:

"I imagine that, when The Weirdstone of Brisingamen appeared, with its wizard and its army of dark elves, people who didn't know 'The Legend of Alderley' claimed that you'd copied The Lord of the Rings."

"Which showed that they hadn't read any middle or old English. Tolkien and I ripped off the same sources. He did it for his reasons. I did it because, at a simple level, I hated made-up names. If I'd used a name that was familiar [in ' connection with "The Legend of Alderley"] considerable baggage would have come with it."

"A name like King Arthur?"

"Yes. When my archive was given to the Bodleian Library in Oxford six years ago, I heard from somebody connected with the film of The Lord of the Rings. He said that one of the Tolkien family had given him JRR Tolkien's annotated copy of The Weirdstone of Brisingamen. And apparently his notes are just vitriolic."

"What bothered him?"

"'Trivial use of language.' I would love to see that book." http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/there-is-a-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-why-novelist-alan-garners-reality-is-tinged-with-mysticism-2086657.html]

[Nerwen]

"I imagine that, when The Weirdstone of Brisingamen appeared, with its wizard and its army of dark elves, people who didn't know 'The Legend of Alderley' claimed that you'd copied The Lord of the Rings."

"Which showed that they hadn't read any middle or old English. Tolkien and I ripped off the same sources.

And with all that they're not very similar anyway. I think people can be a little too quick to call any book with a wizard in it a Lord of the Rings rip-off.

By the way, though, I was quite startled when I found out a couple of years ago that the 'Legend of Alderley' wasn't just something Garner had made up; one does get so used to fantasy novels opening with some kind of "legend" or "prophecy".

[davem]

What I find interesting is that (a somebody from the movie seems to have access to the Bodleian's Tolkien archive, & b) that Tolkien would get so angry over Garner's novel. Wonder what aspects specifically got him so angry?

[Nerwen]

What I find interesting is that (a somebody from the movie seems to have access to the Bodleian's Tolkien archive, & b) that Tolkien would get so angry over Garner's novel. Wonder what aspects specifically got him so angry?
*shrugs* The rather random use of names, maybe?

[Mithalwen]

What I find interesting is that (a somebody from the movie seems to have access to the Bodleian's Tolkien archive, & b) that Tolkien would get so angry over Garner's novel. Wonder what aspects specifically got him so angry?

There were a few people involved on the films or related products who mightwell have access.. Alan Lee & John Howe maybe.. Royd Tolkien would have access and appeared as an extra in the film.

[Aiwendil]

Let's keep in mind that what we have here is a third-hand report. I'd reserve judgement on Tolkien's "vitriolic notes" until I actually see them, or at least hear a report of them from someone who's actually seen them.

[Mithalwen]

Of course one person's vitriolic comment may be another's professional judgement ...have to bear context in mind. It was a private copy and not a public review he had no need to be tactful.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

There were a few people involved on the films or related products who mightwell have access.. Alan Lee & John Howe maybe.. Royd Tolkien would have access and appeared as an extra in the film.

Tom Shippey is another.

[Bêthberry]

What I find interesting is that (a somebody from the movie seems to have access to the Bodleian's Tolkien archive, & b) that Tolkien would get so angry over Garner's novel. Wonder what aspects specifically got him so angry?

Keeping in mind Aiwendil's cautionary note, I would hazard a guess it would be the cavalier way Garner used names without any respect for their historical derivation or initial referents. I don't know the book, but this is what wiki says about it:


The author claims that all names of legendary beings were taken directly from mythology, although some are used with vastly different meanings from their traditional roots - for example, Nastrond and Grimnir. Durathror is a deer in Norse mythology, whereas he is depicted as a dwarven warrior in the book.


To a philologist, such misappropriation would show a complete lack of respect for the initial mythology and how language develops. Shippey has a good explanation of how Tolkien's way with words was completely different, in both The Road to Middle-earth and Author of the Century.

But then again, wiki is not the most reliable source either. ;)

By the way, the link in the first post does not work.