New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[davem]

http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_translations/2012/07/was-first-felt.html This is a translation of an interview CT gave recently to Le Monde.Fascinating stuff - particularly his comments on the films. Despite what lots of people seem to think I have great respect for the man and his work, but at the same time I reckon some of his/his lawyers recent decisions have been both wrong and cruel. Anyway. .......

[Inziladun]

Thanks for that link, davem. I think the interview explains a great deal about the reasoning the Estate might have in being so mulishly opposed to third-party uses of Tolkien's work. Yes, there are probably instances in which permission to use the character names and likenesses could be harmlessly granted, but I can sympathize with the desire to simply throw out the wheat along with the chaff, especially when it seems likely the latter is much more ubiquitous.

CT also expresses very clearly, much better than I ever have, the problem with the PJ movies.

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialisation has reduced the esthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away."

That's it in a nutshell. The books have always struck a deep chord within me, but the movies have been a hollow imitation, with the main focus being money. They do nothing for me.

[Lalwendë]

The works would have fallen out of copyright at some point anyway, so once a successful adaptation was made, this was inevitable. Such is the nature of making money, like it or loathe it.

This policy, however, has not protected the family from the reality that the work now belongs to a gigantic audience, culturally far removed from the writer who conceived it.

Here's a key quote. I'm sure you could say that this is evidence that 'the author is dead' and that Barthes etc were correct about the post-modern world. On a happy note, it means that alongside Jackson's 'vision' there are many thousands of 'visions', and indeed even here many have taken up their pens and brushes and indulged in some subcreation.

On a different note - what does the journalist mean by a "gigantic audience, culturally far removed from the writer who conceived it"? Obviously in a literal sense, almost everyone is 'culturally far removed' from Tolkien, an academic who has long since passed away, he's effectively from another world, and even while alive he lived in a rareified world. Does the writer mean that the masses 'culturally far removed' cannot understand just what Tolkien meant? Or does this have a more post-modern meaning, that now his works are out there, adapted, sub-created, thoroughly well used, that the readers/audience have more 'ownership' than those who currently hold the copyright?

I have to say, good for the Estate that they finally got a cut of the profits, though they would not have them had Tolkien not sold over those rights. I wonder what they would rather have?

[Mithalwen]

Thanks for that link, davem. I think the interview explains a great deal about the reasoning the Estate might have in being so mulishly opposed to third-party uses of Tolkien's work. Yes, there are probably instances in which permission to use the character names and likenesses could be harmlessly granted, .

The estate doesn't own the names though - they are all TMs of the Saul Zaentz company, As for things like the pub names... there are 2 pub restaurants locally with Hobbit in the title. One has had no trouble the one that has had trouble was due to them selling merchandise with the names on and was resolved by paying a very modest licencing fee.

I have had a quick look at the original and it is quite interesting to read the comments of the French readers.

[Formendacil]

First off, thanks to davem for finding this article. I find myself solidly in the CT/Inziladun camp regarding sympathies but that hardly sets me apart on this site...

On a different note - what does the journalist mean by a "gigantic audience, culturally far removed from the writer who conceived it"? Obviously in a literal sense, almost everyone is 'culturally far removed' from Tolkien, an academic who has long since passed away, he's effectively from another world, and even while alive he lived in a rareified world. Does the writer mean that the masses 'culturally far removed' cannot understand just what Tolkien meant? Or does this have a more post-modern meaning, that now his works are out there, adapted, sub-created, thoroughly well used, that the readers/audience have more 'ownership' than those who currently hold the copyright?

I took it, as you suggest, in the sense of "dead academic of medieval things" vs. "living, less-educated children of the 30-second soundbite and Hollywood glitz", and in that respect I didn't read it as a post-modern idea at all. Within the context of the article, it seemed less to me to suggest that people today can't get the message; rather that they probably won't--not because it is inaccessible but because they are habituated to receiving things in the Hollywood mode--and Jackson has now given them the Hollywood mode.

Mind you, I already thought that beforehand, so I might be revealing *my* assumptions rather than uncovering those of the original French author...:rolleyes:

[dreeness]

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialisation has reduced the esthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away."


Chris must find it physically exhausting, keeping his head turned away while cashing all those enormous cheques.



:rolleyes:

[Inziladun]

Chris must find it physically exhausting, keeping his head turned away while cashing all those enormous cheques.



:rolleyes:

Did you miss this particular line?

This commercial galaxy is now worth several billion dollars, of which most does not go to Tolkien's heirs, and this complicates the management of his heritage for his family, which is polarized not over the images or objects, but over the respect for Tolkien's words.

That's been one of the points of contention between the Estate and Saul Zaentz and Co.

[Mithalwen]

Chris must find it physically exhausting, keeping his head turned away while cashing all those enormous cheques.



:rolleyes:

Snide little post there

More like writing all those cheques if he were to do it personally. No idea if you can read a set of accounts but this was the first lot that popped up on a search 2007 - bout half way since the films. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends15%5C0000273615_ac_20070405_e_c.pdf

If you do look at them you will see that the Trustees don't even take expenses which having been a finance officer for two charities I can tell you can tot up.
So these are the charities that benefitted from the cashing of "all those enormous cheques". The second figure is the previous year's donation. The Trust likes to give longterm support rather than large one off payments.

Interesting to note that the legal fees anticipated to get their dues from the films is about a years worth of donations. Shows what you can do with good PR if you can make the Tolkiens look like the bad guys in that sort of situation. Also makes you wonder what the parasites who try to freeload and cash in on Tolkien's name and work do with their profits.

The Ace Centre Advisory Trust 6,000
Action Aid 20,000
Action Contre la Faim 20,000 115,000
Action for Blind People 2,000 2,000
Aid to the Church in Need (UK) 3,000 4,000
Alzheimer's Society 2,000 2,000
Amnesty International UK 16,000 15,000
Association of International Cancer Research 2,000 -
Anglo-Peruvian Child Care Mission 2,000 -
Association pour la Promotion des Extraits Foliaires en Nutrition 6,000 5,000
Asylum Aid 2,000 -
Asylum Welcome 7,000 5,000
The Bat Conservation Trust 1,500 -
Bhopal Medical Appeal 6,000 -
The Big Issue Foundation 7,000 4,000
Birdlife International 10,000 10,000
Birmingham Diocesan Trust 3,000 3,000
Blaen Wern Farm Trust 7,500 6,500
The Bodleian Library - Archiving 35,000 -
The Bodleian Library - Digitisation costs 43,857 -
The Botley Alzheimer's Home 20,000 8,000
Breakthrough Breast Cancer 20,000 9,000
Brecon Mountain Rescue Team 5,000 -
British Friends of NSWAS 5,000 5,000
British Red Cross 3,000 -
British Refugee Council 5,000 2,000
British Retinitis Pigmentosa Society 2,000 2,000
CAFOD 8,000 5,000
Campaign to Protect Rural England 6,000 5,000
Cathedral of St Andrew and St Michael 5,000 -
Childaid to Russia and the Republics 3,000 4,000
Christian Peace Education Fund 3,000 4,000
Climate Outreach Information Network 9,000 10,000
Complementary Health Trust 3,000 1,000
Create (Arts) Limited 6,000 5,000
Cued Speech Association UK 2,000 2,000
Cutteslowe and District Community Association 3,000 1,000
Dames of Ypres/Benedictine Sisters - Kylesmore Abbey 5,000 5,000
DEC Niger Crisis Appeal - 100,000
DEC Asia Quake Appeal - 200,000
Dresden Trust 3,000 1,000
EducAid Sierra Leone 3,000 2,000
Emmaus Oxford 9,000 -
Enfants du Monde - Droits de I'Homme 15,000 15,000
Farm Crisis Network 2,000 -
Find Your Feet Limited 25,000 113,000
The Foundation for Children with Leukaemia 2,000 2,000
The Friends of the Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields 10,000 10,000
Gloucester Community Church 3,000 2,000
The Grail Centre Trust 50,000 -
Guideposts Trust Limited 9,000 -
The Guild of Handicraft Trust 3,000 2,000
The GYL Project 2,500 1,500
Handicap International 15,000 -
Helen and Douglas House 3,000 -
Help the Aged 2,000 -
The Hope Foundation for Cancer Research 2,000 1,000
The Horse's Voice 3,000 1,000
The Howard League for Penal Reform 9,000 5,000
Inter Faith Network 3,000 1,000
Intercontinental Church Society 3,000 1,000
International Women's Health Coalition 10,000 -
Independence at Home (formerly Invalids at Home) 2,000 2,000
Koestler Trust 5,000 -
Lady Balogh's Psychotherapy Trust 3,000 1,000
Landmine Action 5,000 -
Let the Children Live 2,000 -
The Lincoln Clinic and Centre for Psychotherapy 3,000 1,000
Macmillan Cancer Relief 2,000 1,000
Medical Foundation for the Care of the Victims of Torture 10,000 10,000
Medecins du Monde 10,000 13,000
Medecins Sans Frontieres ( France) 25,000 15,000
Mildmay Mission Hospital 6,000 4,000
MIND (The National Association for Mental Health) 2,000 2,000
Music in Lyddington 2,000 1,000
National Children's Home 2,000 2,000
National Council on Ageing 3,000 2,000
National Deaf Children's Society - Birmingham and District Region 2,000 -
New College Oxford 5,000 -
The Oratory School 10,000 5,000
Orchestra of St. Johns Limited 6,000 4,000
Oxfam International 20,000 -
Oxford Bach Choir 6,000 3,000
Oxford Homeless Medical Fund 9,000 10,000
Oxford Parent Infant Project (OXPIP) 6,000 5,000
The Oxford Philomusica Trust 6,000 5,000
The Oxford Playhouse Trust 9,000 5,000
Oxfordshire Touring Theatre Company Ltd 1,000 -
Oxfordshire Victoria County History 6,000 -
Performing Rights Society 3,000 -
The Poetry Trust (formerly The Aldeburgh Poetry Trust) 2,000 2,000
The Porch 6,000 5,000
Practical Action (Intermediate Technology Development Group Ltd) 20,000 15,000
Prison Advice and Care Trust 2,000 -
Prisoners' Education Trust 3,000 2,000
Rainbow Centre for Children 2,000 -
Rebuilding Sri Lanka 40,000 -
Rochdale Special Needs Cycling Club 1,000 -
The Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind - 2,000
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution 3,000 -
The Royal National Institute for the Blind 3,000 9,500
The Samaritans 5,000 2,000
The Save the Children Fund 3,000 2,000
Shelter, National Campaign for Homeless People Limited 11,000 6,000
Simon Wiesenthal Centre 2,000 2,000
The Smile Train 5,000 -
Sobell House Hospice Charity 3,000 -
St Aloysius Appeal 20,000 8,000
St Hilda's College Oxford 5,000 -
St Peter's Church, Eynsham - 20,000
The Story Museum 2,000 1,000
Survive - Miva 3,000 2,000
Sustrans 3,000 -
Swansea Russian Ballet 7,500 5,500
The Tablet Trust 6,000 5,000
Talking Newspaper Association of the UK (TNAUK) 3,000 2,000
The Thomley Hall Centre Limited 6,000 5,000
Trefnu Cymunedol Cymru 10,000 5,000
Trinity College Oxford 5,000 -
Trust for Research and Education on the Arms Trade 6,000 4,000
Ty Hafan Children's Hospice 12,500 10,000
The UK Working Group on Landmines - 6,000
United Christian Broadcasters Ltd 2,000 1,000
The United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF 25,000 10,000
University of Oxford Botanic Garden and Harcourt Arboretum 7,000 -
University of Oxford Refugee Study Centre 3,000 1,000
University of Manitoba (Alan Klass Memorial Fund) 20,000 20,000
WaterAid 20,000 15,000
West London Churches Homeless Concern 6,000 4,000
The Who Cares? Trust 2,500 -
Womankind Worldwide 10,000 10,000
The Woodland Trust 15,000 10,500
World Cancer Research Fund 6,000 2,000
WWF - Canada 5,000 5,000
WWF - UK 10,000 10,000

[dreeness]

:)


Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)


Nice list of charities, as smokescreens go anyway... "Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged."

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.


parasites who try to freeload and cash in on Tolkien's name and work


Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

[Inziladun]

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)

No need for Google.

hy·poc·ri·sy   [hi-pok-ruh-see]
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.

How is CT guilty of hypocrisy? He had nothing to do with the sale of the movie rights, and doesn't approve of the way PJ's movies were done. There's no pretense there. The movies were done despite his wishes, and he feels the Estate should at least reap some of the benefit, since they couldn't be stopped. Hypocrisy would be present if, say, CT had been actively courting companies for a film treatment, then gave interviews about how evil was the idea of LOTR movies.

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

I don't think Christopher has ever claimed any of his father's "reassembled" works to be a "masterpiece". He's been quite frank about the limitations of such works as Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion. Would you prefer that they had never seen the light of day? And if you don't like the job CT did, who would you have preferred as an editor?

[jallanite]

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.
No-one is shooting anyone. Calling something a blank does not make it one.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.No-one has denied this or does deny it. But part of this legal agreement was that Tolkien, and later his estate, was entitled to some of the profits. It looks like you are one who does not grasp the obvious.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!You support the legal right of the film-makers but deny the legal right of Christopher Tolkien? If you want to keep this on the level of legality alone, the law is the law. Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers? Call me names too if you wish. It won’t matter. Most people will see that it is only empty name-calling by someone who has no other argument.

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?No it wouldn’t.

Christopher Tolkien has the same legal right you go on about to write books about his father’s works as the film makers have to make their films. Christopher Tolkien’s books have sold unexpectedly well. I have not seen most of them pushed as a “lost masterpiece”. I have seen the films pushed as masterpieces.

Christopher Tolkien has a legal claim to a share of the profits of the films (if any). The claim of the film makers is that they have as yet made no money from the films. The courts disagreed.

If you believe that the courts were wrong, then explain how they were wrong. If your claim is on the legal level, then keep it on that level. Legally it would not matter if Christopher Tolkien were an axe-murderer and pederast and abominable writer. As executor of the Tolkien estate he has the right and duty to protect the estate. Similarly the film investors have the right and duty to protect their investment.

Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit. But one has nothing to do with the other. And sales of the books put out by Christopher Tolkien indicate, taken by themselves, that he is doing a good job.

The courts decided that the film investors were lying. That is not a blank. Under the legal agreement which J. R. R. Tolkien signed Christopher Tolkien is entitled to money according to the courts.

[Morthoron]

:)Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

You have offered nothing but bitter bits of personal opinion and misinformed invective, whereas Mith offered concrete information in her rebuttal; therefore, it is you who have brought a pop-gun to the intellectual duel.

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

Christopher Tolkien's research has proved invaluable to me in numerous projects. The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author. The published material in the History of Middle-earth series alone is an enriching resource that I treasure and find indispensible.

I don't know why you have such an axe to grind, but it seems to me you have seriously misjudged the intent of Christopher Tolkien as executor of his father's unpublished material, and you are utterly misguided regarding the scholarly value and reading enjoyment of Christopher Tolkien's publications. He has shown the utmost integrity and a love for his father's work that I find exemplary.

Your posts, on the other hand, leave much to be desired.

[Mithalwen]

Any facts in there? Sources for quotations?

On what basis do you feel you have the right to address Christopher Tolkien as "Ol'Chris"? say he is insignificant and abject?

Cheers Morth, jallanite and Inzil.. no need for me to reiterate your splendid comments.

[dreeness]

:)



Would you prefer that they had never seen the light of day?

(Yes.)



Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

(Yep, worst thing I never said.)



Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit.

(Except maybe for that.)



Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers?

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)



Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)



The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)



On what basis do you feel you have the right to address Christopher Tolkien as "Ol'Chris"? say he is insignificant and abject?

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)



(Still not at all clear about the "parasites" comment. Who are the alleged parasites? Peter Jackson? New Zealand? Honda?)



Cheers Morth, jallanite and Inzil.. no need for me to reiterate your splendid comments.

(Oh go on, give yourself a cheer too, you're astounding!)


:D

[Boromir88]

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)


Please, do not use the Constitution as a crutch for your ignorant drivel. It's embarrassing.

[Galadriel55]

(Yes.)

Don't read them.

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

No, I would not like to see what you've called anyone, just as much as I do not like to see what you've called CJRT.

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

You - once again - fail to see that CJRT is not made rich by the movies. He is getting very very very little of the money that the films make. It is not a question of profit. Let me give you an alternative analogy:

X says that Y can use some of his ideas. Y makes good money on the ideas. X comes to Y and says, "give me some credit for the idea!"

While hating how the "idea" was messed around with by the movies, games, and etc, what is wrong with demanding the due for giving the original spark - especially if by the contract that gave the movie rights part of the profit goes to the Tolkiens?

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)

Respect has nothing to do with any declarations or courts.

(Oh go on, give yourself a cheer too, you're astounding!)

:D

If you would please wipe this attitude out when you talk to Mith who, unlike you, gave proper argumentation and evidence? If you don't like what she says, say what you don't like about it and why you don't like it. Don't put on all those airs and assume you are automatically right.

[jallanite]

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)
Maybe you could just stop the vicious name-calling.

... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)That was a very poor analogy, considering what has already been posted here about charitable donations made by Christopher Tolkien on behalf of the Tolkien Estate.

Christopher Tolkien was already rich, made so by his father’s writing —which includes sale of film rights—and he has already donated large amounts. He has the same rights of freedom of speech as anyone else. It is the film producers who have been convicted of crying all the way to the bank claiming, “We still haven’t made any money!”, not Christopher Tolkien.

If Christopher Tolkien avoided criticizing the film companies, would that have been not hypocritical? It seems to me that not saying what you really think is also called hypocritical.

It is your hypocrisy that staggers me.

You continue to avoid the fact that the film companies lost legally and were forced to pay Christopher Tolkien. Having got at least some of the money to which he is legally entitled, he is also entitled to laugh all the way to the bank having beaten the film companies. No hypocrisy at all.

You apparently would prefer that Christopher Tolkien had done nothing and allowed the film companies to continue in their lies. But that too would be called hypocrisy. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)The word unprecedented is arguable, but only arguable. Even work by Mark Twain unpublished in his lifetime has not to that degree been entirely edited and commented on by one person.

[Morthoron]

:)
Smiley emoticons do not replace sentient content, nor do they mask an apparent lack of courtesy. As a new member of the forum, I am wondering why you have decided to take an altogether contrarian attitude here.

If it is your intention to alienate yourself from the rest of us, then congratulations, you are well on your way to pariah status.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

I am uninterested in what "seems unlikely" to you. We are not talking about your innate ability to divine an opinion. Your level of prescience is already in question.

If you have an actual example of such extraordinary documentation, research and editing of unpublished works of an author compiled by a single person, I'd like to hear it. Pepys? Boswell? I have quite an extensive library of literary criticism and research and I've seen nothing like it. If you have something valid to offer rather than snide and unsubstantiated contentions, then do so; if not, then there is no debate.

I would consider The Silmarillion, the 12 volumes of The History of Middle-earth, The Children of Hurin, and The Legend of Sigrid and Gudrun to be "unprecedented", but then again J.R.R. Tolkien himself was unprecedented in the depth and scope of his subcreation. And I am grateful to Christopher Tolkien for making this documentation available to the public.

[Mithalwen]

Still not at all clear about the "parasites" comment. Who are the alleged parasites? Peter Jackson? New Zealand? Honda?

Those who use things they have no legal entitlement to use them or welch on the contract to use them.

[Lalwendë]

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)


Not the best analogy really. I'm a civil servant and a leftie and our Government is a bunch of neo-cons. I'm not about to give up my job though, as I need to feed the family - and more pertinently to this issue, we are not expected to support the Government, we are impartial in our working life and free in our personal opinions. Just as Christopher Tolkien may well have to manage cheques earnt from selling Lego Frodos and Arwen Tea Towels (I'd like one of these, wonder where I can get one???) as part of his job, yet with a peg on his nose. Not everyone can afford the luxury of self righteousness over things like that. Such is life.

And no, I don't worship at the altar of Christopher Tolkien, nor the Estate who have done some quite odious things (giving to charidee doesn't give you an exemption clause from being decent to small businesses etc). He has also got himself a job for life and I have concerns about 'sole gatekeepers' to literary estates after the debacle over the control Ted Hughes's sister had over the Plath literary estate. But you have to be realistic, he's human! And the Estate was entitled to that cash.

I took it, as you suggest, in the sense of "dead academic of medieval things" vs. "living, less-educated children of the 30-second soundbite and Hollywood glitz", and in that respect I didn't read it as a post-modern idea at all. Within the context of the article, it seemed less to me to suggest that people today can't get the message; rather that they probably won't--not because it is inaccessible but because they are habituated to receiving things in the Hollywood mode--and Jackson has now given them the Hollywood mode.

I often think that with writers such as Tolkien who produced very vivid, readable epics, the received wisdom that a 'Hollywood' treatment can alter things doesn't always hold true. Even after those blockbusting films which introduced characters such as Gollum and Gandalf to the mainstream mindset (how many people do you know who use 'Hobbits' as a general term for anyone short?) those images have not been set in stone. Looking at fan art works you can see this - people still ahve their own vision.

That, I think, is because the writing, and in particular, the visual message implied in the langauge, is so strong. It's shared with George RR Martin too. JK Rowling, as much as I love her to pieces, doesn't share this, sadly. Or perhaps it is down to maturity of audience?

It could be an interesting discussion, to root out whether the films really have altered our mental Middle-earth landscape, and to what extent...

I do sneakily like the idea that it's all out of Tolkien's hands though, as that's where actual mythology begins.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say" when there is a legitimately meaningful difference. I also wonder why--and this is perhaps in the original--much is made of Christopher Tolkien's "upper class" accent. Is that a point which is supposed to influence our understanding of his position?

It is very good to be reminded that the producers used that despicable line about 'not having shown profits yet' as a way to deny the Estate their legitimate profits. It provides a perspective on why the lawyers are being so assiduous about the rights of the Estate. As I recall, that line has also been used by the producers of Jimi Hendrick's music to deny his heirs any money from his estate. There's a culture of legal nitpicking and entitlement these days that amounts to greed and abuse by those in authority who feel empowered over those who may lack power. I'm glad the Estate won their case. Perhaps if The Scouring of the Shire had not been omitted from the films the producers might have understood the squalour of their position.

I often think of the history of medieval texts when I look at how Middle-earth has fed so many different imaginations. This interest is a tribute to Tolkien's desire to write a story that would interest him, and hopefully interest others. The text invites entry into the world; this could well be a quality that other authors have not pursued. But the effect is also an ironic consequence of something Tolkien himself noted in his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.


It ["Sir Gawain"] is one of the masterpieces of fourteenth-century art in England, and of English Literature as a whole. It is one of those greater works which not only bear the trampling of the Schools [Tolkien's capitalisation], endure becoming a text [again, T's italics], indeed (severest test) a set text, but yield more and more under this pressure. For it belongs to that literary kind which has deep roots in the past, deeper even than its author was aware. It is made of tales often told before and elsewhere, and of elements that derive from remote times . . . like Beowulf, or some of Shakespeare's plays, such as King Lear or Hamlet.

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.


His story is not about those old things, but it receives part of its life, its vividness, its tension from them. That is the way with the greater fairy-stories--of which this is one.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

Like Christopher Tolkien, I don't particularly like the movies (although my dislike is milder than his). Yet at the same time I have to wonder if this explosion of versions of Middle-earth isn't in fact a literary phenomenon like the kind seen in medieval stories. It becomes a tribute to Tolkien's writing, both his scholarly and his fictive interests.

[jallanite]

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

[davem]

Couple of interesting things: first, this the first comment I've read from CT about the films. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the family had refused to make any comment at all about them. Second, its also fairly clear from his comment that he has seen the films - or at least the first one.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - if Jackson had gone for a straight action movie aimed at 15 - 25 year olds I think a great deal of the background material (most of the extra material in the extended editions) would have gone by the wayside (I think of Theodred's funeral & the heart-breaking scene between Elrond & Arwen in TT among other things). What Jackson certainly did was create a movie that would prove attractive to 15 -25 year olds as well as older people. There is too much stuff in the movies which wouldn't be there if Jackson had merely done what CT accuses him of.

That said, there are some frankly dumb things in the movies that he ought to be slapped for.

My own dissatisfaction at the movies is simply that they don't 'feel' like Lord of the Rings - something is missing - its in the BBC radio series, which CT played a part in bringing into being, sending tapes of correct pronunciations to the adaptors & corresponding with them - not to mention allowing them to incorporate material from Unfinished Tales into the series. I don't know why the radio version captures the mood & spirit of the book & the movies don't. That said, & if CT thinks PJ has 'trivialised' his father's work, let's imagine what Michael Bey or James Cameron might have gifted us with ...

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

[Inziladun]

It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

Perhaps he does harbor some resentment toward J.R.R.T for the movie rights' sale, internally. If so, that's his business.
One reason I see for CT's frustrations with the movies might be connected with the fact that before the world of LOTR belonged to this world, it was something the two of them could share. The author was sending the story to CT as it evolved, and perhaps CT bears some possessiveness toward the works that the rest of us cannot fathom. He might see Saentz and Co. not merely as withholders of money owed at least on a moral plane, if not a legal one, but more pointedly as having taken something dear that CT saw as a piece of his father's memory.
I have no idea if that is actually the case, but it seems plausible to me.

[Boromir88]

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

Well, it's not like Tolkien was rolling in the money selling the film rights, and at those days commercial merchandise was nowhere near what it would become after Lucas' Star Wars films.

Just my observations here, but it seems at first Christopher Tolkien did not care a great deal about the films. Maybe he did not like them/approve of their making, but for the most part it seemed as if Chistopher's opinion was "Hollywood will do what they want and I don't want any part of it." I can't really fault him for that, because with as much money that was dumped into the films, big showtime Hollywood was going to get the movie they wanted. You can't exactly tell a corporation dumping 100s of millions of dollars into films "Haldir doesn't die, and the only elf at Helm's Deep was Legolas." With the end product, I don't blame Christopher for refusing Jackson's invitation to advise on the films.

The real anger though, I believe, was New Line attempting to cheat the Estate out of their royalties. There really is no excuse for such blatant crookery and it's doubly disgusting that the Estate had to spend years in litigation to get what was their just due from the contract. Even if New Line's part was not Jackson's fault, I think with the product of the films, combined with New Line being crooks, I can see why Christopher Tolkien is far more peeved at the movie-industry then you or me.

[Mithalwen]

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say"

The original calls him professeur. Which can be anything from a Secondary school teacher up but there is often a modifier... Maitre de conference might be the most accurate equivalent it is a long time since I worked in a French University as a "Lecteur" (which is a foreign language assistant rather than the lofty heights of Reader in an UK university) and I can't quite remember the fine details but IIRC French University lecturers are civil servants and tend to have to sit competitive exams to get their posts. So with different systems it is hard to give an exact equivalent. Given how much wider the meaning of professeur is in French compared to professor in English, and that it is factual rather than literary I might have elided the issue by saying he taught Old English... not ideal ,,is lecturer really not understood the other side of the pond?

As for the accent... the original is "Un Anglais distingué, doté d'un accent très upper class" I don't know that is making much of it, Doté is a bit stronger than with. It literally has the sense of endowed with. From the Silmarillion recordings, Christopher does have a very upper class accent.... though not suprising for someone of his age and schooling, especially an expat. If you use a different language for a lot of day to day life it can keep your native language in a time warp. It seems a pretty good translation really though I have been using French more recently it isn't back to what it was by a long chalk.

[Lalwendë]

CT's attitude reminds me somewhat of what happens when an old home is sold. Whether you feel happy or sad about leaving the place behind, anything the new owners do will upset you, and do something they will. Even if the films had been more faithful it may have been like driving past and seeing new windows in and the trees chopped down. In one respect he should be happy as it was as likely as not they would have razed it to the ground and rebuilt it (John Lennon or John Boorman had some insane ideas for example). Unfortunately, there's not a thing you can do about it.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I wonder has he ever realised that the books are packed with action? ;) But seriously, this does remind me of the regular griping you see in Guardian film blogs which bemoan the superhero film as being "for young males, a load of tripe". They are, however, great fun and make a lot of money, unlike Lars von Trier films which a certain portion of the mature audience enjoy - only a small one though, as older people have kids and can't go out, which is perhaps why nobody is ever going to make a film of The Archers. Even for me, who would have loved a gentle, lengthy BBC TV serial of Lord of the Rings, there's the realisation that if you need to spend a fortune in special effects and whatnot then you are going to have to do a few things to please the paying public. Though they could have kept in Tom Bombadil, purely to annoy the hoodies :D

According to the article, which may or may not be true (and I would not vouch for it without referring to a respected biography), Tolkien sold for £100k in the late sixties which was an absolute fortune back then, considering you could buy a nice big house for around £2k.

This though, is nonsense:
This amount was meant to allow the writer's children to pay their future inheritance taxes. Tolkien did it early because these taxes were very high under the Labour government of England of that time.

It wouldn't have helped to pay for death duties at all as they were and are incurred on an estate.

Some things not picked up on from the article...

What about this controversial statement?

First in England, then in France, he reassembled the parts of The Silmarillion, made the whole more coherent, added padding here and there, and published the book in 1977, with some remorse. "Right away I thought that the book was good, but a little false, in the sense that I had had to invent some passages," he explains. At the time, he even had a disagreeable dream. "I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something in great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."

And how about the journalist being insulting here:

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.

Knowing that Alan Lee and John Howe are two ordinary fans like the rest of us who both have incredible respect for Tolkien, I think they may be a tad insulted by this statement. Their 'vision' was actually conceived years before and they were chosen because of their work - it passed muster with Tolkien fans before the film so there is no reason why it should not pass muster afterwards. And is one of the very best things about the films.

[Mithalwen]

I thought it was income tax he needed the cash to pay - I am sure the details have been discussed here before a while back. Sure I ended up digging up the legislation.. not that I am obsessive or anything. Idea that it was on the lines on having to pay a very hight rate of tax before he received the income. 2K wouldn't have bought Tolkien's bungalow in Branksome Chine even though it wasn't very big and was spectacularly ugly. Since selling the rights wouldhave increased the value of the estate I can't see it would help with death duties. I suppose the share of profits might have been hoped to cover them if Tolkien didn't anticipate the films actually being made in his life time... though given the longevity in his family apart friom his parents he perhaps hoped for longer than he got. But what I have read on the issue before implied an immediate need rather than inheritance tax planning.

[Lalwendë]

The Hobbit panel is happening right now at Comic Con and a fan just asked Jackson if he would make a film of the Silmarillion. Jackson said there was "almost no chance" as "the Tolkien estate hold the rights and the Tolkien estate does not like the films".

Very topical.

[Bêthberry]

is lecturer really not understood the other side of the pond?

Not here in North North America!

As for the accent... the original is "Un Anglais distingué, doté d'un accent très upper class" I don't know that is making much of it, Doté is a bit stronger than with. It literally has the sense of endowed with. From the Silmarillion recordings, Christopher does have a very upper class accent.... though not suprising for someone of his age and schooling, especially an expat. If you use a different language for a lot of day to day life it can keep your native language in a time warp.

Given that there's no class lines in any of our few regional accents here, accents are not a significant issue here. I had to wonder what was so very relevant about CT's accent--just a bit of character expose or was the interviewer trying to suggest some kind of elitism or snobbishness on CT's part? Not quite the same as "upper class twit" but a bit of shading of the man.

It seems a pretty good translation really though I have been using French more recently it isn't back to what it was by a long chalk.

Thanks! I'm sure your French is still much better than mine, which gets some of the rust rubbed off on the ocasional (and rare) trips to Montreal.

[Bêthberry]

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

My questions about the number of versions of fairy tales were rhetorical. I meant merely to suggest a similarity between the many versions of fairy tales and the many versions of Middle-earth we now have.

[Mithalwen]

Given that there's no class lines in any of our few regional accents here, accents are not a significant issue here. I had to wonder what was so very relevant about CT's accent--just a bit of character expose or was the interviewer trying to suggest some kind of elitism or snobbishness on CT's part? Not quite the same as "upper class twit" but a bit of shading of the man.

.

I don't get that impression. And Le Monde, which regards itself as the Rolls Royce of papers is unlikely to have an issue with elitism. I think it is a simple description. The writer uses dote in the same article in relation to JRRT's imagination so I don't get a negative connotation. I don't think the French have the reverse snobbery regarding accents either. In some ways the French are egalitarian but they won't compromise standards. It used to be that if you passed the Baccalaureat, whichever subjects you had taken you could be admitted to any degree course but the first year exams were notoriously tough so there was a high fall out rate. In French secondary schools if you didn't pass the year you had to take it again whereas here other in exceptional circumstances you stay with your year group regardless which means you could have secondary school pupils way in to their twenties!

[dreeness]

:)


Please, do not use the Constitution as a crutch for your ignorant drivel. It's embarrassing.

(Please post more of your atavistic grunting. It's a hoot!)




Maybe you could just stop the vicious name-calling.

("Vicious"? Do you know that Zaentz tried to financially destroy John Fogerty?)




Smiley emoticons

(On an internet posting board?! The horror, the horror...)




an apparent lack of courtesy

(That's rich.)




If it is your intention to alienate yourself from the rest of us, then congratulations, you are well on your way to pariah status.

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)




The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author.

(Obvious twaddle. You better "move the goalposts", and hope nobody notices...)




If you have an actual example of such extraordinary documentation, research and editing of unpublished works of an author compiled by a single person, I'd like to hear it.

(And you did move the goalposts! Well done, padawan! If you hadn't done that, I might've said "What about Fargnoli's work on Joyce?", and then you would've said "Joyce who?" and chaos would surely reign.)




welch on the contract

(Yay, ethnic stereotypes!) :p




I'm a civil servant and a leftie and our Government is a bunch of neo-cons. I'm not about to give up my job though, as I need to feed the family

(Well yeah, but thats "survival vs utter ruin", not "tons of money vs tons more money".)




And no, I don't worship at the altar of Christopher Tolkien

(Well, apparently that makes you a Thought Criminal.)


;)

[Inziladun]

("Vicious"? Do you know that Zaentz tried to financially destroy John Fogerty?)

I see no association with the topic of this thread.

(On an internet posting board?! The horror, the horror...)

It isn't the mere use of emoticons that is the problem. The context in which you use them is inconsistent with the words around them.

(That's rich.)

I would posit you're the only one here who thinks so.

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

Again with the discourtesy. I don't know what other forums you've lurked at, but here civil discourse and respect for others is highly valued.

(Yay, ethnic stereotypes!)

She said "welch". Not quite the same as "welsh", and in any case, a common expression.

(Well yeah, but thats "survival vs utter ruin", not "tons of money vs tons more money"

So you think the Estate is not entitled to proceeds from the movies, then? Do you have a reason, besides saying "CT was against the movies, so he shouldn't accept any of the profits from them?"

(Well, apparently that makes you a Thought Criminal.)

Once again, it isn't your opinion that is bothersome, it is the manner in which you express it.

[Lalwendë]

Please all calm down before davem's interesting thread gets closed.

Ta. :)

[Bêthberry]

I don't get that impression. And Le Monde, which regards itself as the Rolls Royce of papers is unlikely to have an issue with elitism. I think it is a simple description. The writer uses dote in the same article in relation to JRRT's imagination so I don't get a negative connotation. I don't think the French have the reverse snobbery regarding accents either. In some ways the French are egalitarian but they won't compromise standards. It used to be that if you passed the Baccalaureat, whichever subjects you had taken you could be admitted to any degree course but the first year exams were notoriously tough so there was a high fall out rate. In French secondary schools if you didn't pass the year you had to take it again whereas here other in exceptional circumstances you stay with your year group regardless which means you could have secondary school pupils way in to their twenties!

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Perhaps a reminder about the kind of etiquette followed here, from the Mod, Estelyn Telcontar, would be helpful:

Posting Guidelines (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805)

No flaming, no personal attacks. Please attempt to expand or develop the topic.

[Mithalwen]

Prejudices aren't always hereditary!!! And it isn't an insult to call someone an intellectual in France - and there is the warmth and the wine and the stringent privacy laws.. and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

[davem]

This is a bit interesting in the context of CT's attitude to the movies - a statement he made immediately prior to the release of FotR http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tolkien-sold-film-rights-for-10000-6335205.html

He said: "My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form. On the other hand, I recognise that this is a debatable and complex question of art, and the suggestions that have been made that I 'disapprove' of the films, whatever their cinematic quality, event to the extent of thinking ill of those with whom I may differ, are wholly without foundation. I have never expressed or entertained any such feeling, which I would think altogether inappropriate and wrong-headed."

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

[Boromir88]

And another very well-written article linked below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4726863/We-talked-of-love-death-and-fairy-tales.html

Scroll to the end for the comments regarding the films, but my suggestion (particularly to dreeness) would be to read the entire article to understand the context and point I'm making.

[Morthoron]

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

I get the distinct impression that you would be a marvelous resource when we discuss the "Roast Mutton" chapter of The Hobbit.

(And you did move the goalposts! Well done, padawan! If you hadn't done that, I might've said "What about Fargnoli's work on Joyce?", and then you would've said "Joyce who?" and chaos would surely reign.)

Actually, I am aware of Fargnoli, as I am a fan of Joyce. But then, in your rush to cheap sarcasm, you have undercut any chance of sounding reasonable or serious in your replies.

I do have a copy of Fargnoli's James Joyce A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Life and Writings. It is well written, and a worthwhile reference book. It is not as enjoyable and irascible as Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, but definitely a book I have used. Yet I don't believe the "A to Z" or his other few thin volumes - much of it critiques and analyses of the works Joyce published within his lifetime - equates to an all-encompassing retrospective of the size and scope I was referring to, particularly in regards to unpublished material. Not even remotely close. In addition, nearly all of his work is co-authored by various other academics. But since it seems you are more interested in insults and imputations, you probably had little time to actually research your posts.

But please, try again.

[Legolas]

Thanks to those keeping it civil, and those reminders of proper forum conduct.

You may wish to review a couple of our policies (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5993) and guidelines (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805).

Accept the fact that others have different opinions. If you don’t agree, just state your own opinion; you don’t have to correct everyone else or argue until they agree with you.

Violators will be entombed.

[Lalwendë]

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

Sometimes I suspect he's the oldest Hipster in town - "Tolkien films are so over." ;)

But, he probably didn't think they would make good films even before they were made, either because (like a lot of us) he didn't realise just what modern SFX are capable of or he had an extremely fixed and strong vision in his own mind. Likely the latter. And thirteen years later, he is probably negatively affected by all of the hype surrounding them and the court case.

Anyone going through a court case like that is bound to hate those films, it's not a case of someone saying they hate them but secretly quite enjoying them. CT hates them, full stop. However, given all the hype and marketing, even if there had been no court case I think he would still hate the films.

Some of the hype I dislike, but overall, I think it's unfair to blame Alan Lee and John Howe for the visual images they created. It's as beautiful and thoughtful a vision that could have been created, seeing as they chose the two very best Tolkien visual artists to lead it, and they are two artists who took immense care over what they made. Blame Jackson for some bad script choices, yes, but not the artists.

I come back again to what the journalist said, and I think he/she is likely unaware of the work of these two men and the respect they did and still do show to Tolkien's work as fans themselves. It's really not fair to blame them if marketeers used their imagery afterwards for some of the cheesier products - better this than something lurid by the Hildebrant Brothers ;)

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.

[Mithalwen]

It is odd because on the whole it is probably the aspect of the film he minds least. Alan Lee was requested to do the illustrations for the Children of Hurin which was a matter in which CRT presumably had a lot of clout. Noone can know exactly how Tolkien saw his world and he himself was the first to admit that he had not the skill to realise his vision in paint (though the more I read, the more I realise how skilled he was at doing it with words) but it seems that Alan Lee is, at least, the "least worst option" as far as CRT is concerned.

I am no great fan of the films and have never managed to sit through the second two in their entirety since seeing them in the cinema but I did enjoy the prop and costume exhibitions and got the feeling that those who designed and created them really cared about the source material. Where they fell down for me was that characterisation was always sacrificed to endless action scenes and cheap gags. But then I am not the desired demographic.

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

For me one ot the strengths of the Radio version - and indeed the wonderful Bernard Cribbins Jackanory reading that was my introduction to Middle Earth, was that it left more scope for the listener to engage with the work firing one's own imagination rather than dictating. Of course they are a lot more faithful to the original.

[Lalwendë]

I think the opinion on Lee and Howe is that of the journalist, who is a dreadful writer. The article is all background pre-amble and the journo's feelings about the topic, with very scanty input from CT. I would guess he spoke for longer than two minutes so where is the rest of it?

Anyway, here we are, I've found the page where Alan Lee expresses beautifully his feelings about illustrating Middle-earth:


In 1988, Alan was approached by J. R. R. Tolkien's publisher to create fifty new paintings for a lavish new edition of The Lord of the Rings, celebrating the first centenary of Tolkien's birth. This work took the artist two years to create and was published in 1991 — a stunning achievement which beautifully captures the unique magic of Tolkien's world. (More recently, he completed illustrations for The Hobbit, published earlier this year.)

Speaking about this massive undertaking, Alan says: "I first read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit when I was eighteen. It felt as though the author had taken every element I'd ever want in a story and woven them into one huge, seamless narrative; but more important, for me, Tolkien had created a place, a vast, beautiful, awesome landscape, which remained a resource long after the protagonists had finished their battles and gone their separate ways. In illustrating The Lord of the Rings I allowed the landscapes to predominate. In some of the scenes the characters are so small they are barely discernible. This suited my own inclinations and my wish to avoid, as much as possible, interfering with the pictures being built up in the reader's mind, which tends to be more closely focussed on characters and their inter-relationships. I felt my task lay in shadowing the heroes on their epic quest, often at a distance, closing in on them at times of heightened emotion but avoiding trying to re-create the dramatic highpoints of the text.

With The Hobbit, however, it didn't seem appropriate to keep such a distance, particularly from the hero himself. I don't think I've ever seen a drawing of a Hobbit which quite convinced me, and I don't know whether I've gotten any closer myself with my depictions of Bilbo. I'm fairly happy with the picture of him standing outside Bag End, before Gandalf arrives and turns his world upside-down, but I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons Hobbits are so quiet and elusive is to avoid the prying eyes of illustrators."

{dn: my paras there, to make it easier to read}

Linky to the Endicott Studio (http://http://www.endicott-studio.com/gal/galalan.html) which he is part of, a loose group also included Neil Gaiman, Brian Froud and Charles Vess. One of the rare websites which can be called a thing of beauty.

[Inziladun]

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

The question of other visions than PJ's moves me to wonder what CT thought of the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi animated movies.

Personally, even though they are hardly high works of art, nor are they slavishly faithful to the books (to say the least (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=671945&postcount=13810) ;)), I've got a soft spot in my heart for them, and do not harbor the same dislike I have for the live action treatments. I don't know if it's due to the fact that I saw them as a child and never took them seriously to begin with, or if it's more the lingering frustration that PJ got just enough right that his errors were simply that much more magnified and hard to forgive.

Did CT ever give an opinion of the earlier attempts?

[Mithalwen]

It always amuses me that they seem to favour the leather and bare leges Conan the Barbarian type look. Goodness knows what was going on in their psyches but it does seem rather impractical for nothern climes in winter. I know neither Boromir or Aragorn had mothers around for long to tell them they'd catch their death but really.. I suppose I should be grateful at least that Jackson's vision included trousers.

[Nogrod]

"My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form. On the other hand, I recognise that this is a debatable and complex question of art"It is, I think also debatable, whether he or the prof himself would have thought about this differently had they not being tied into their view of the "visual dramatic form" as a theatre piece or a movie that can only last for a certain amount of time, like three to four hours maximum?

What would have Tolkien thought about an HBO/GoT kind of a settlement with something like six seasons fex. (one season to every book) aka. 60 hours of top class drama? Would that kind of possibility, if presented to them, have changed their minds from the LotR being "in principle" unsuited to transform into a visual dramatic form?

[Mithalwen]

If more time meant more fildelity and development I imagine it would be preferable but I don't know whether it would solve the issues say related to depicting the various races of Middle Earth. Not being familiar with GoT I can't say whether they have similar issues to solve.

Elves are the killer really.... meant to be so beautiful, so elegant, graceful, old yet young. Cate Blanchett pulled it off but she has the advantage of being arguably the best actress of her generation as well as having the right physicality. Not many can do it and even though there aren't so many elves in LOTR as would be needed say for any filming of the Silmarillion. But they just get tall skinny slghtly odd looking humans.... doesn't quite work. Not for me anyhow.

[Bêthberry]

and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour. ;)

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

[davem]

An interesting documentary coming up on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 4th August The Hobbit, the Musical http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ld15z

Actor Billy Boyd, who played a hobbit in the films of The Lord Of The Rings, narrates the story of the first ever stage production of J.R.R.Tolkien's The Hobbit, at New College School in Oxford in 1967. It was written by Humphrey Carpenter, with music by composer, Paul Drayton, then music teacher at the school. We hear from the boys who performed it, who were choristers at the time and who are now eminent in the musical world: Choral conductor Simon Halsey, Martin Pickard Head of Music at Opera North, artist's agent Stephen Lumsden and composer Howard Goodall- who watched his older brother Ashley, now a marketing professional, perform. They talk about their memories and about Tolkien's presence in the audience on the last night.
The present-day Chamber choir at New College School sing some of the original songs, and we also play a never before broadcast recording of the production as it happened in 1967.

Yep - a High School musical of The Hobbit, written by Tolkien's biographer, which Tolkien attended. Carpenter spoke about it in a talk he gave after Tolkien's death. Carpenter went to discuss the project with Tolkien. While Tolkien apparently wasn't very enthusiastic about the idea, according to Carpenter he did suggest ideas for music for some of the songs & attended. Carpenter stated that Tolkien smiled when his original words were used but winced at any changes.

This other Radio 4 doc also looks fascinating Tolkien in Love http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l8qr2
Novelist Helen Cross, who herself lives in Birmingham, uncovers the story of the young J.R.R. Tolkien, falling in love with Edith Bratt. The love story of Beren and Luthien at the heart of his novel The Silmarillion was inspired by their relationship. They were both orphans, living in a boarding house in Edgbaston, Birmingham. The teenagers would talk out of their respective bedroom windows until dawn, and go for cycle rides to the Lickey Hills. However, when their romance was discovered, Tolkien's guardian, Father Francis Morgan, forbade Tolkien to see Edith until he came of age.Tolkien won an Exhibition to Oxford and Edith went to live in Cheltenham. But at midnight, as he turned 21, Tolkien wrote to Edith saying his feelings were unchanged. Unfortunately, in the intervening years, Edith had got engaged to someone else. Tolkien got on a train and she met him at Cheltenham station. They walked out to the nearby countryside and Tolkien persuaded her to break off her engagement and marry him instead. But the First World War was about to intervene, and Tolkien volunteered and was sent to the Somme.

Helen Cross visits key locations in Birmingham, Cheltenham and Oxford, to tell the story of Tolkien's young life and the love story at the heart of it.
Readings by David Warner as Tolkien and Ed Sear as the young Tolkien.

Both should be available via i player (radio programmes are usually available worldwide http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_four/20120714 )

[Lalwendë]

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour. ;)

Going by the descriptions, I'm suspicious it's near where my old mucker's brother mistakenly bought an old house - well off the beaten track, wild boar everywhere which drove their dog insane to the point where she disappeared into the woods and went feral. It was all a failure because they realised Lancashire is much nicer :cool:

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

Do you think you can pick out the Nasmith bits? I want to know now so I can go back and see if those scenes do look different. Because he has a completely different style to Lee, much more lurid - it works in his landscapes which are fabulous but I've never really got on with his figurative work because it moves towards the D&D style there.

[Mithalwen]

Don't suppose that Christopher Tolkien would have retired to Lancashire. He is a Yorkshireman by birth after all. :cool:

[Galadriel55]

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - if Jackson had gone for a straight action movie aimed at 15 - 25 year olds I think a great deal of the background material (most of the extra material in the extended editions) would have gone by the wayside (I think of Theodred's funeral & the heart-breaking scene between Elrond & Arwen in TT among other things). What Jackson certainly did was create a movie that would prove attractive to 15 -25 year olds as well as older people. There is too much stuff in the movies which wouldn't be there if Jackson had merely done what CT accuses him of.

Oh come on, you just don't like CJRT. :p

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT

I agree. But then I would not put CJRT alone like that - I think many people would not be happy with any movie. I know I wouldn't.

I wonder has he ever realised that the books are packed with action?

They certainly are, but they are not action-based books. I mean, if you have a book without action you're probably holding a botanical encyclopedia. :p Yet the books (LOTR at least) do not emphasize the action, and it happens slowly, and allows other things to happen too. You don't have 20 pages of descriptions of how Aragorn chops orcs in half, three at a time, at a rate of 60 orcs/minute. But you can't expect to sell a movie to 15-25 y/o's nowadays without it being like that - which brings me back to the beginning of this endless cycle.

What about this controversial statement?

I don't know. I'd feel guilty too if it was my father's work that I altered.

What would have Tolkien thought about an HBO/GoT kind of a settlement with something like six seasons fex. (one season to every book) aka. 60 hours of top class drama? Would that kind of possibility, if presented to them, have changed their minds from the LotR being "in principle" unsuited to transform into a visual dramatic form?

I think that it would not work this way either. I have not seen GOT, but I'd imagine it works well, because there is so much detail on everyday details, if you know what I mean. Like, in LOTR, you'd hardly expect to read about a trip to the privy because of an indigestion from last night's feast. And there is less detail in general - whereas GOT would describe a fight with all the moves and details and gore, LOTR would read "they fought and X won". The scope of LOTR makes it difficult to fit into x amount of hours, but its lack of details in the writing style makes it difficult to make a series without making it profane and ruined.

So I think that LOTR is, indeed, "on principle unsuited to transform into a visual form" as a whole. Parts have been done well in the movies, and there are many beautiful drawings, but I think you just can't reenact it from cover to cover and get it right. It's just like that. For lack of a better description - on principle.

[Lalwendë]

They certainly are, but they are not action-based books. I mean, if you have a book without action you're probably holding a botanical encyclopedia. :p Yet the books (LOTR at least) do not emphasize the action, and it happens slowly, and allows other things to happen too. You don't have 20 pages of descriptions of how Aragorn chops orcs in half, three at a time, at a rate of 60 orcs/minute. But you can't expect to sell a movie to 15-25 y/o's nowadays without it being like that - which brings me back to the beginning of this endless cycle.


Of course it doesn't focus on the violence of battle. I think you might need to read some of the Conan books for that kind of thing, and even then it's not half so violent. If I wanted to read about violence, I wouldn't turn to fiction of any kind, but to history books and the daily news.

But Lord of the Rings is a Quest, and that's inherently an action based story. Constantly moving on. And without the action of challenges along the way, it would be incredibly boring. This is where I think it's a very tricksy book, because the feel of it is pure magic, and we don't always notice that driving narrative. And it's also part of the reason everyone can re-read then so often. Once you know the narrative and have gone on that adventure, next time around you can spend more time looking at the flowers Tolkien describes and drinking in the atmosphere.

To be fair, I think the films did capture the same sense of movement and the same quotient of action as shown in the books. The sweeping panorama shots of the Fellowship moving through the hills are the filmic equivalent of Tolkien spending a few pages on exposition, describing a changing landscape.

[Galadriel55]

But Lord of the Rings is a Quest, and that's inherently an action based story. Constantly moving on. And without the action of challenges along the way, it would be incredibly boring.

Aye. But. :D

LOTR was not a kind of story that I read because I was anxious about what happens next. If I want some of that, I'll reread my GoT. The action happens more subtly, peacefully, gently. You're interested about what happens next, but it doesn't have the kind of read-non-stop grip that some other books do. Instead, what gripped me was what is there besides the plot.

Once again, even books without plot still have some kind of plot, unless they are math textbooks or something like that (though even in those you may find many a plot point.... ok, bad pun on analytic geometry). All novels have some kind of plot. But in LOTR, despite its being a Quest, the plot is not what makes it remarquable.

To be fair, I think the films did capture the same sense of movement and the same quotient of action as shown in the books. The sweeping panorama shots of the Fellowship moving through the hills are the filmic equivalent of Tolkien spending a few pages on exposition, describing a changing landscape.

That's true. I enjoyed those scenes the most, probably, with only a few exceptions. They have the right feel in them.

[Bêthberry]

Do you think you can pick out the Nasmith bits? I want to know now so I can go back and see if those scenes do look different. Because he has a completely different style to Lee, much more lurid - it works in his landscapes which are fabulous but I've never really got on with his figurative work because it moves towards the D&D style there.

It's the landscapes mainly. Check out Nasmith's "At the Falls" and his depictions of Minas Tirith, maybe the cliffs of Rivendell (not the buildings). That's what I can recall; it's been quite awhile since I watched the movies.

[Lalwendë]

LOTR was not a kind of story that I read because I was anxious about what happens next. If I want some of that, I'll reread my GoT. The action happens more subtly, peacefully, gently. You're interested about what happens next, but it doesn't have the kind of read-non-stop grip that some other books do. Instead, what gripped me was what is there besides the plot.


It gripped me! But it did take me a long time to read, as I started by pinching my brother's books and I had to sneak them out. I took them to school with me and would wait for break time and go and find a hidey hole where I could read them in peace - usually in an old cloakroom that was piled high with old chairs. I'd crawl underneath them and sit amongst a century's worth of spiders and dust, reading. I savoured them (the books, not the spiders), but I was thoroughly gripped.

And yes, it was more than the plot, but the plot did drive it all. I remember first reading about Arwen and thinking "Why is she looking at Strider like that?" and not being satisfied until the end as to why. And feeling really upset when Gandalf fell in Moria.

It's the landscapes mainly. Check out Nasmith's "At the Falls" and his depictions of Minas Tirith, maybe the cliffs of Rivendell (not the buildings). That's what I can recall; it's been quite awhile since I watched the movies.

I've just had a look and I see what you mean! Check out "The Tower of the Moon" too - the colouring is not the same as in the films but the shape of the valley and tower is the same.

I quite like his Ents, actually. They are like giant, 'twiggy' men, rather than trees with eyes, which is good.

[Mithalwen]

Looking for something else, I found this on the Estate Website regarding the illustration of the Children of Hurin:

"We have always admired the work of Alan Lee, ever since he was commissioned to illustrate The Lord of the Rings at the time of J.R.R. Tolkien's centenary. While preparing the story for publication, Christopher decided that to have the book illustrated from first publication would also underline its essential quality as a story rather than a scholarly work."

For Christopher to have actively wanted Lee's illustration is quite a mark of approval. And the Estate website is surely a fairly reliable source....:cool:

[Mumriken]

Lee's work is in a class of it's own. I doubt I would be able to vizualise lord of the rings etc without his artwork. It's so rich and adds to the whole middle earth atmosphere. Here are some of his hobbit artwork, I wonder if the movies have taken inspiration from his work.

http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epopee/illustrations/hobbit/grande_porte_lee.jpg
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epopee/illustrations/hobbit/partage_tresor_troll_lee.jpg
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epopee/illustrations/hobbit/colere_smaug_lee.jpg
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epopee/illustrations/hobbit/carrock_lee.jpg

[Mithalwen]

I like Lee's work - certainly better than just about anyone's save Tolkien's own and Pauline Bayne's which is a different style - but I don't need them. I find the word pictures quite vivid.

[Lalwendë]

Looking for something else, I found this on the Estate Website regarding the illustration of the Children of Hurin:

"We have always admired the work of Alan Lee, ever since he was commissioned to illustrate The Lord of the Rings at the time of J.R.R. Tolkien's centenary. While preparing the story for publication, Christopher decided that to have the book illustrated from first publication would also underline its essential quality as a story rather than a scholarly work."

For Christopher to have actively wanted Lee's illustration is quite a mark of approval. And the Estate website is surely a fairly reliable source....:cool:

That's good, because it confirms it's the journalist projecting some assumptions rather than CT's own feelings on the matter. One of the things that surely nobody could criticise about the films was the care put into the artwork by Alan Lee and John Howe - their Oscar was truly well deserved.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's also worth noting that the Estate *requested* that Alan Lee do Children of Hurin *after* the films- so the notion of petty resentment or blackballing is shown to be another myth.

Note on "upper-class" accents: JRRT himself would be the first to point out that the "Oxford accent" is of very middle-class origin. (To hear a bona fide upper-class accent, listen to some 50s-era recordings of the Queen speaking).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Since you said this, of course, we've been fortunate enough to see Verlyn Flieger's talk at Return of the Ring, which calls into question that very aspect of Tolkien Senior's personality. I've been meaning ever since to start a thread to discuss my thoughts on that issue, but for now just a quick thought.

I haven't consulted my library yet, but it seems to me that the only aspects of French culture to which JRRT expressed any antipathy were specifically those which have been imposed on the English, either by the Normans (Woden's curse be upon them) or the aptly French-named bourgeoisie (in other words, precisely those people represented by the Sackville-Bagginses). It's easy to see how a product of industrial, no-nonsense Birmingham society might well heap a certain amount of disdain on the gratuitous and unnecessary use of French where a perfectly adequate English term exists, or the unjustifiable privilege given to French culture among the would-be arbiters of taste in this country. It's possible that Humphrey Carpenter overstated the case a little or misinterpreted what he discovered. In any case, I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

I don't believe CT ever flew Spits. He did his primary training in Tiger Moths and his advanced training in Harvards, then transferred to the RN- I don't know what he flew in the FAA or whether he reached an operational squadron before demob, but I know he never qualled or flew off carriers, which rules out Seafires.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Being a bit of a plane buff, that information interests me a lot. It's a standard progression for mid-1940s pilot training, but interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I wasn't suggesting that CRT flew Spitfires; I was just selecting the type that's my personal point of departure from JRRT's comments in Letters #100. I had no knowledge of CRT's military service beyond the very basics until I read your post just now.

[Inziladun]

I don't believe CT ever flew Spits. He did his primary training in Tiger Moths and his advanced training in Harvards, then transferred to the RN- I don't know what he flew in the FAA or whether he reached an operational squadron before demob, but I know he never qualled or flew off carriers, which rules out Seafires.

Hurricanes might be a good possibility as well.
I know this is a bit far afield of this thread, but WWII aviation is an interest of mine too. ;)

I always wondered if combat aviation might not have been in the back of JRRT's mind when he wrote of battles between Eagles and Dragons, and aerial elements strafing the ground, like Smaug did to Lake-town.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

CT began his training at No. 7 Air School (Tiger Moths), Kroonstad, Free State; after completing Elementary Flying Training there he moved on to No. 25 AS (Harvards) at Standerton, Transvaal for Service Flying Training.

Upon graduation and commissioning in March 1945 he was sent back to England, and subsequently was transferred to the FAA; I don't know why but if I had to guess it would be because with the surrender of Germany there was a perceived greater need for RN pilots vs. Japan. By this time in the war the RN was operating few British-built aircraft; aside from the Barracuda and a small number of Seafires most of its TOE was made up of USN types (Martlet/Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger etc).

[leapofberen]

I thank God for Christopher Tolkien. Here is a man who has spent the rest of his life finishing his father's work...how rare is that in this day and age? And if he had not spent years being about his father's work, I would not have enjoyed or benefited from those works, especially The Silmarillion. He is an honorable man, and it warms my soul to know that there are folk like him out there.

I do not find it surprising that Christopher and the Tolkien Estate are opposed to the commercialization and circus surrounding the Jackson movies. I would expect that after having read the Professor's writings and letters. Not surprising at all!

I do not think it is fair or right to throw Christopher under the bus for asking for a cut of the profits that came from the adaptations of his father's work; I would. JRRT was his FATHER after all. If it pains him as much as we have heard to see his father's work handled in such a way, then this would be some small redemption. More importantly, I do not believe it was about the money for Christopher (his history should prove that!) but rather about honoring his father in some way. In fact, it would be better if the people handling the adaptations, the movie studios, etc, would have chosen to honor the Tolkien estate by giving them their cut in the first place.

It only goes to show, no matter how much one loves or hates the movies, that the folks who were behind making them (I am not speaking of Jackson here) are only in it as deep as the money goes. I know that even Peter Jackson struggled to create the adaptations that he did! I understand the way Christopher feels. I also understand that it all could have been much worse if someone other than Jackson had made the adaptations...much worse.

Well, much of this is tragic, and I too am somewhat grieved to think that Tolkien's work could be so readily exposed to dilution or depravity if it were not for his children and his estate. Thank God for Christopher Tolkien and his work, his perseverance and the preservation of his father's legacy; and much more then that: rather, the preservation and telling of stories of which JRR Tolkien says, "I always had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere..."

May we all learn to get caught up in the Larger Story. Thank you JRRT and CJRT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I thank God for Christopher Tolkien. Here is a man who has spent the rest of his life finishing his father's work...how rare is that in this day and age? And if he had not spent years being about his father's work, I would not have enjoyed or benefited from those works, especially The Silmarillion. He is an honorable man, and it warms my soul to know that there are folk like him out there.

I do not find it surprising that Christopher and the Tolkien Estate are opposed to the commercialization and circus surrounding the Jackson movies. I would expect that after having read the Professor's writings and letters. Not surprising at all!

I do not think it is fair or right to throw Christopher under the bus for asking for a cut of the profits that came from the adaptations of his father's work; I would. JRRT was his FATHER after all. If it pains him as much as we have heard to see his father's work handled in such a way, then this would be some small redemption. More importantly, I do not believe it was about the money for Christopher (his history should prove that!) but rather about honoring his father in some way. In fact, it would be better if the people handling the adaptations, the movie studios, etc, would have chosen to honor the Tolkien estate by giving them their cut in the first place.

It only goes to show, no matter how much one loves or hates the movies, that the folks who were behind making them (I am not speaking of Jackson here) are only in it as deep as the money goes. I know that even Peter Jackson struggled to create the adaptations that he did! I understand the way Christopher feels. I also understand that it all could have been much worse if someone other than Jackson had made the adaptations...much worse.

Well, much of this is tragic, and I too am somewhat grieved to think that Tolkien's work could be so readily exposed to dilution or depravity if it were not for his children and his estate. Thank God for Christopher Tolkien and his work, his perseverance and the preservation of his father's legacy; and much more then that: rather, the preservation and telling of stories of which JRR Tolkien says, "I always had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere..."

May we all learn to get caught up in the Larger Story. Thank you JRRT and CJRT.


I think CT is in something of the position as the son of a great and legendary chef, who has lived to see his father's name slapped on a chain of wildly successful burger joints.... and is then foully pilloried for not endorsing fast food.


(CT incidentally is a *very* nice man, and has a hysterically funny dry wit. He is no hermit, and is fact quite social, but doesn't like crowds or publicity.)

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I like Lee's work - certainly better than just about anyone's save Tolkien's own and Pauline Bayne's which is a different style - but I don't need them. I find the word pictures quite vivid.

I, myself, watched the PJ version of Tolkien before reading the books. At the time I was perfectly satisfied with his interpretation -- I do not feel the same way anymore. I like Alan Lee's artwork. I also like John Howe's. I own four ME maps that were painted by John Howe and they are quite beautiful. Despite this, I find the longer it has been since I watched the films, the more I have a different visual of ME than was shown, and surprisingly, I like mine better. PJ was able to get people on his team that were talented in making the visual ME, but he botched it in the character and scripting department.

Christopher Tolkien has a right to be disappointed. He was there when his father was writing, after all. He probably knows better than anyone else alive what J.R.R.'s vision was for his works. Without Christopher Tolkien, we would know hardly anything about Middle-earth and its history.

[davem]

This is a brief excerpt from a recording made at Church House Bookshop back in 1981, launching the BBC Radio adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Its a short piece, where Brian Sibley goes into the contribution Christopher made to the series, & references the tape recording CT made as a pronunciation guide for the actors.

About 5 seconds of silence before the audio starts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spIPrF_PPE&feature=youtu.be

[jallanite]

This tape is welcome here, at least to me.

Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation of Thengel (using International Phonetic Alphabet symbols) as Then[dʒ]el where his father pronounced it as The[ŋɡ]el stands out as an odd differing pronunciation. It is probably not an error by either of the Tolkiens but would indicate different theories of how the Old English name may have been pronounced, and possibly theories of how the name was pronounced in different dialects of Old English.

Old English grammars, at least those that I have seen, get vague in their rules for words which contain ng. See http://www.lotrplaza.com/archive7/forum_posts.asp?TID=234771 for a discussion which in its later sections, towards the top, gets into Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation. Another possible pronunciation is The[nj]el. It is noted in the forum I have linked to that Tolkien preferred to pronounce the name Hengest as something like Hen[dʒ]est or Hen[j]est where other systems of Old English pronunciation prefer He[ŋɡ]est.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The problem there is that in attempting to reconstruct ancient pronunciations, we rarely have much to go on besides what we can deduce from the sound-patterning of the language's surviving verse, whether rhyme, assonance, or alliteration; and that doesn't help much with medial consonants and consonant-pairs.

Occasionally orthography helps, as a sound-shift can be traced in a spelling change over time and/or colloquial spellings; but that's no help with -ng since there wouldn't have been an alternate orthography, "J" not existing in OE (except as an alternate written form of the vowel "I")

So -ng is really anybody's guess, depending on whether one wants to use "frog DNA" from mod. German, or from Dutch-Frisian which is a closer cousin. FWIW, I'm disposed to think that dzh- in English, spelled either J or G, is a French import. But I certainly have no evidence to back up my gut there.

[jallanite]

That J did not exist in Old English is irrelevant. My only use of the letter is as the International Phonetic Alphabet character [j] which is sounded like consonantal Y in modern English.

But -ng- is in at least some Old English words pronounced as [ŋ] as in Latin. Some such words are longe (‘long’), cyning (‘king’), song (‘song’) with ng pronounced [ŋ]. But singe (‘I sing′) is considered to have been pronounced as sin[dʒ]e and engel (‘angel’) is pronounced as en[dʒ]el, similar to modern angel.

For many words which exist in Middle English and Modern English the post-Old English forms are a great help.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides. See, for example, http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resources/IOE/pronunciation.html , where it is stated:Dotted ġ is usually pronounced [j], as in Modern English yes, but when it follows an n it is pronounced [ʤ], as in Modern English angel.
Dotted ġ only appears in some modernizations of Old English text to distinguish soft g from hard g. The International Phonetic Alphabet symbol [ʤ] was a former variant covering the two symbols [dʒ] but is now obsolete in official IPA usage. In current procedure one might use [d͡ʒ] if one wants to indicate specifically that [dʒ] represents a single phoneme.

Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation is indeed one possible pronunciation of the name Thengel following modern theories reconstructing Old English. It is not a French import. I do not know the bases for this decision.

[Mithalwen]

Doesn't Christopher explain his choice? It is a bit indistinct but I have heard this before and I thought he did.. but not having done much (ie virtually no) AS it didn't sink in.

I don't suppose it is at all relevant that west midlands accents now tend to sound ng closer to separate consonants than the IPA hooked n sound - sin-ging

[William Cloud Hicklin]

That J did not exist in Old English is irrelevant. My only use of the letter is as the International Phonetic Alphabet character [j] which is sounded like consonantal Y in modern English.

But -ng- is in at least some Old English words pronounced as [ŋ] as in Latin. Some such words are longe (‘long’), cyning (‘king’), song (‘song’) with ng pronounced [ŋ]. But singe (‘I sing′) is considered to have been pronounced as sin[dʒ]an and engel (‘angel’) is pronounced as en[dʒ]el, similar to modern angel.

For many words which exist in Middle English and Modern English the post-Old English forms are a great help.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides. See, for example, http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resources/IOE/pronunciation.html , where it is stated:
Dotted ġ is usually pronounced [j], as in Modern English yes, but when it follows an n it is pronounced [ʤ], as in Modern English angel.
Dotted ġ only appears in some modernizations of Old English text to distinguish soft g from hard g. The International Phonetic Alphabet symbol [ʤ] was a former variant covering the two symbols [dʒ] but is now obsolete in official IPA usage. In current procedure one might use [d͡ʒ] if one wants to indicate specifically that [dʒ] represents a single phoneme.

Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation is indeed one possible pronunciation of the name Thengel following modern theories reconstructing Old English. It is not a French import. I do not know the bases for this decision.

You're rather missing the point. The absence of J in A-S is relevant to the extent that there was no alternate orthography for G which might shed light on the issue, unlike, say ME G-W.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides.. By many, yes, but not all: that's the point- we really don't know and it's a matter of deduction. (Dotted G of course is a modern convention, not found in the sources)

[jallanite]

Doesn't Christopher explain his choice? It is a bit indistinct but I have heard this before and I thought he did.. but not having done much (ie virtually no) AS it didn't sink in.

No he didn’t really explain it. Brian Sibley noted that he had written back to Christopher Tolkien pointing out that J. R. R. Tolkien had used the pronunciation The[ŋɡ]el which he felt sounded better than The[ndʒ]el and that Christopher Tolkien indicated that the change was acceptable to him. He provided no reason. Perhaps this is an Old English word of disputed pronunciation or perhaps Christopher Tolkien realized that he had perhaps mispronounced it.

Sibley then suggested that perhaps J. R. R. Tolkien was intending to give the name in genuine Rohirric as opposed to genuine Old English. That seems to me to be most improbable. Thengel is a genuine Old English name. It is also one that seems to me to be equally possible to be read either way in both Old English and Modern English.

I will see what I can find out from reputable sources.

I don't suppose it is at all relevant that west midlands accents now tend to sound ng closer to separate consonants than the IPA hooked n sound - sin-gingNot that I can see. Christopher Tolkien quite definitely reads The[ndʒ]el, not something like The[ŋɡɡ]el or The[ng]el. And what he reads is one of the two pronunciations possible for the word under pronunciation guides which recognize both pronunciations as possible for ng in Old English as in Modern English.

You're rather missing the point. The absence of J in A-S is relevant to the extent that there was no alternate orthography for G which might shed light on the issue, unlike, say ME G-W.

Well, I now get what you were trying to indicate.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides.. By many, yes, but not all: that's the point- we really don't know and it's a matter of deduction.Of course it is to some extent a matter of deduction. That is not the same as indicating that one deduction is as good as another (which indeed you don’t actually say). The two pronunciations [ndʒ] and [ŋɡ] for ng are found in more than one source and one of each is supported by one of the two Tolkiens, who were both experts in Old English.

Your gut belief that [dʒ] is not found in Old English has, as yet, no support from a trustworthy Old English pronunciation guide. The indications I have found give [dʒ] as only occurring in Old English following [n], which fits with Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation.

Is it possible that when shown that your belief that [dʒ] probably did not occur in Old English conflicts with definite statements that it does, following [n], that you are now attempting to claim that because these are only deductions, they aren’t necessarily so but that your gut feeling has more likelihood if being true? At the moment, I don’t accept that. I want something better.

(Dotted G of course is a modern convention, not found in the sources)Your information on dotted ġ was already indicated by me as I wanted to make it clear what was meant by “dotted ġ″in the passage I was linking to. You should read posts more carefully before answering.

[Aiwendil]

FWIW, I'm disposed to think that dzh- in English, spelled either J or G, is a French import. But I certainly have no evidence to back up my gut there.


But, regardless of the pronunciation of 'ng', isn't it rather generally accepted that 'cg' was pronounced [ʤ]? (As in 'ecg' - modern English 'edge' - for example).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

OK, my gut willingly stands corrected: OE ecg absolutely has the soft g, and so my categorical exclusion is simply wrong.

Perhaps I was misrecalling the suggestion that [dʒ] for "J", specifically, was a French import.




Of course, JRRT also moved a bit between theory and practice himself: in his recordings he invariably pronounces the final consonant of Gandalf [f] while himself averring that in 'proper' Norse it would be [v].

[jallanite]

Searching though websites and library books has convinced me that most authors just don’t bother to cover ng, but that those who do all give the two values of [ŋɡ] when the g has the hard sound and [ndʒ] when the g has the soft sound, and everyone seems to agree that Old English cg is to be pronounced [dʒ].

See http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resources/IOE/pronunciation.html which in I have already linked to and which covers the entire book Introduction to Old English by Peter S. Baker (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003). There were about four copies on the shelves, which is an unusual number of copies of the same book for the main branch of the University of Toronto Library.

Then there is http://www.omniglot.com/writing/oldenglish.htm which is the Omniglot site of Old English/Anglo-Saxon.

Last is http://weofodthignen.livejournal.com/158550.html which says:Although g after n is usually sounded g, occasionally (e.g. sprengan, ancestor of "spring") it is instead j as in "edge," but shorter than in cg words.
None of this indicates how this is thought to be known, but perhaps that is because it is too obvious. Middle-English generally adopted the same spelling system as Old English, but simplified and modified it to mostly follow the Norman French spelling system. In particular the early Middle-English writers had introduced the French version of the letter g, but also kept as a letter of the alphabet a descendant of the Old English version of the alphabet. This letter is now usually known as yogh and was written something like Ȝ/ȝ. (You may not be able to see it here if you have an old computer, in which case you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogh what it sometimes looked like.)

Middle-English writers generally used the letter gee (G/g) to transcribe the sounds of gee as it existed in Norman French. The French letter G/g is believed to have then had two sounds, a hard sound [g] like the hard sound of G/g in Modern French and English and Old English as well as a soft sound [dʒ] heard in Modern English and Old French but seldom if at all in Old English. The ḟormer Old French [dʒ] has since softened still further and is now [ʒ].

Middle-English writers generally used the letter yogh (Ȝ/ȝ) to transcribe the sounds of Middle-English gee which were assigned to gee in Old English but differed from the French sounds, namely [j] (the sound used in Modern English for consonantal Y) and [ɣ] which is a sound that has since become lost in English or is fronted to [f] but is now sometimes spelled as gh, for example in tough, though, cough, draught, laugh, straight, tough, plough, thorough, and in other words.

In short, the linguists are assuming that if an early Middle-English scribe is using the letter G/g rather than Ȝ/ȝ, it must be because the sound to be represented is either [g] or [dʒ]. Therefore the Old English values must have been the same or very close to one of these choices. So when the scribes put down G/g and not Ȝ/ȝ, cg must have been pronounced as [dʒ] and Old English ng, if not to be pronounced as [ŋɡ], must be pronounced as [ndʒ].

However the closest I have come to finding verification of this theory is from Henry Sweet’s famous book A History of English Sounds (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1888). Sweet uses Bell’s Visible Speech characters which cannot be reproduced over the web. I have replaced them by approximate IPA values in curly braces, although in this case the values don’t make sense to me and I believe they may be in error. On page 196 Sweet writes:744. OE ġ becomes ȝ everywhere in ME, except in the combination nġ and nċ, where {ɲɟ, ɟɟ} gradually developed into their present sound of (nʒ, dʒ) as in senġen, briġġe MnE (sinʒ, bridʒ) = OE sęnġan, bryċġ.In short, if Thengel has a soft g then Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation as Then[dʒ]el is a correct one according to current standards. I have found two modern listings which contain the noun þengel and present it as þenǵel, here using an acute accent to mark the soft sound. One of the volumes was J. B. Passenger’s A Short Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon Poetry: In normalized Early West-Saxon (University of Toronto, Toronto: 1962). My notes are not in order on the other book, but I recall that it was in German.

However at least some earlier sources indicate the hard sound for þengel. See http://www.bosworthtoller.com/031660 for the page on þengel from Bosworth-Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary of 1898. According to the pronunciation guide at the centre top of the page the word is pronounced /θeŋɣel/. I cannot account for the vowel /ɣ/ but at least this is closer to J. R. R. Tolkien’s pronunciation. It suggests that the pronunciation provided by J. R. R. Tolkien was not simply an inexplicable error.

There the matter stands at the moment. Possibly some newer discussion has indicated that the g in Thengel had a soft sound or possibly this is a matter which is still in common debate.

Note, in many hard fonts in use in the 20th century the yogh symbol appeared in a from identical or almost identical to ʒ. Indeed it was often thought they were simply different forms to the same symbol. This was incorrect and in Unicode ȝ is usually now clearly distinguished from ʒ in fonts. Yogh sometimes appears in the HoME series and there it appears in a form indistinguishable from ʒ.

Of course, JRRT also moved a bit between theory and practice himself: in his recordings he invariably pronounces the final consonant of Gandalf [f] while himself averring that in 'proper' Norse it would be [v].

Tolkien nowhere mentions ″proper Norse”. In Appendix E I Tolkien writes:F represents f, except in at the end of words, where it is used to represent the sound of v (as in English of): Nindalf, Fladrif.
But this is an account of the pronunciation of the Quenya and Sindarin Elvish tongues, except in a few cases where Tolkien thinks fit to explicitly bring in one of the other languages. The discussion begins with Tolkien stating:The Westron or Common Speech has been entirely translated into English equivalents. All Hobbit names and special words are intended to be pronounced accordingly: for example Bolger has g as in bulge, and mathom rhymes with fathom.
In Appendix F I Of Other Races – Dwarves, Tolkien writes:Gimli’s own name, however, and the names of all of his kin, are of Northern (Mannish) origin. Their own secret and ‘inner’ names, their true names, the Dwarves have never revealed to anyone of alien race. Not even on their tombs do they inscribe them.
The name Gandalf is to be understood as one of these Northern names which Tolkien has substituted for the real Northern names, just as he supposedly substituted Old English names of the real Rohirric names, and invented Hobbit names to replace real their real names. These supposedly substitute Dwarvan names are taken from the Norse Eddas and some of them are somewhat Anglicized. Notably the name Dwalin in the Old Norse sources is Dvalin.

All these Northern names are to be understood as English-related substitutes for the the real names of the persons mentioned. In his essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales Tolkien writes:Gandalf is a substitution in the English narrative on the same lines as the treatment of Hobbit and Dwarf names. It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in ‘magic’, and might be understood to mean ‘Elvish wight with a (magic) staff’. Gandalf was not an Elf, but would be by Men be associated with them, since his alliance and friendship with Elves was well-known. Since the name is attributed to ‘the North’ in general, Gandalf must be supposed to represent a Westron name, but one made up of elements not derived from Elvish tongues.
In short, Gandalf was never considered by Tolkien when he wrote the bit about f at the end of names, nor should he have been. Like the Dwarves he bears a name understood to be adapted to Weston both in the original imagined tale and in the English translation.

[Galin]

The Appendices also note...

The 'outer' or Mannish names of the Dwarves have been given Northern forms, but the letter-values are those described.


And 'those described' would appear to point back to what was said about F, indicating a final -v sound in Gandalf as in Old Norse (if one assumes the name Gandalf is to be included here anyway).

Yet...

The still more northerly language of Dale is in this book seen only in the names of the Dwarves that came from that region and so used the language of the Men there, taking their 'outer' names in that tongue.

Here 'only' is interesting. While Gandalf as representing a Westronized form makes some sense to me, in my opinion technically the account in Unfinished Tales refers to the name as representing Westron, attributed to the North 'in general'.

Still leaving Gandalf with a final -f sound.

[jallanite]

And 'those described' would appear to point back to what was said about F, indicating a final -v sound in Gandalf as in Old Norse (if one assumes the name Gandalf is to be included here anyway).

I am not “assuming”. Gandalf is a name found in Old Norse and made of Old Norse elements. The same is true for Forn which is applied to Tom Bombadil, although it is not found in the Eddas.

I agree that the sentence you cite seems to mean that Tolkien’s rules about F should apply to the name Gandalf. However, as you point out, Tolkien elsewhere says that “Gandalf must be supposed to represent a Westron name”. Yet Tolkien elsewhere indicates that Westron represents English and Gandalf is not an English name.

Tolkien is not always perfectly consistent. The tie-breaker is that Tolkien’s own pronunciation of Gandalf with the last letter pronounced f indicates what Tolkien intended despite places where, if Tolkien’s words are pressed to the full, that is not what he is saying.

Gandalf, I see, as Tolkien’s representation of an Old Norse name in English and slightly Anglicized.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In short, Gandalf was never considered by Tolkien when he wrote the bit about f at the end of names, nor should he have been. Like the Dwarves he bears a name understood to be adapted to Weston both in the original imagined tale and in the English translation.

Why do you persist in ascribing to me statements I've never made and opinions I've never advanced? OF COURSE the bit on terminal F in App F refers to the Elvish tongues.

"Adapted to Westron" is all well and good- except that Westron nowhere appears in the book (save a couple of "actual" hobbit-names presented in App F); the CS is feigned to have been turned into English.

However, Gandalf is not an English name, not even an Old English name. Tolkien is just being inconsistent (or nonrigorous). He could after all make mistakes! Just recall the self-created mess he had to dig himself out of regarding Thror-Thrain.

--------------------------


Just perhaps related -although I have no idea what JRRT's scholarly opinion was on the matter - might be the theory that in at least some regional OE pronunciations no distinction was made between voiced and unvoiced fricatives: [s] and [z], [f] and [v] were interchangeable (think of the slightly but not wholly stagey "Zummerzet" accent)

[jallanite]

In short, Gandalf was never considered by Tolkien when he wrote the bit about f at the end of names, nor should he have been. Like the Dwarves he bears a name understood to be adapted to Weston both in the original imagined tale and in the English translation.
Why do you persist in ascribing to me statements I've never made and opinions I've never advanced? OF COURSE the bit on terminal F in App F refers to the Elvish tongues.

The statement you give is at the end of http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=674827#post674827 and is my own statement and not ascribed to you. It appeared to me that I was answering what I felt you meant. Sorry if I misrepresented you.

What you did say at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=674778#post674778 was:Of course, JRRT also moved a bit between theory and practice himself: in his recordings he invariably pronounces the final consonant of Gandalf [f] while himself averring that in 'proper' Norse it would be [v].
As far as I can determine Tolkien never said that in ‘proper’ Norse it would be [v], though the statement itself would usually be considered to be quite correct. If Tokien did say what you say, exactly as you have cited it, that statement does not indicate that Tolkien ever pronounced his name Gandalf with the Norse [v], therefore there is no inconsistency.

"Adapted to Westron" is all well and good- except that Westron nowhere appears in the book (save a couple of "actual" hobbit-names presented in App F); the CS is feigned to have been turned into English."Westron nowhere appears in the book (save a couple of "actual" hobbit-names presented in App F”? Tolkien first mentions Westron in his Prologue where he writes:And in those days also they forgot whatever languages they had used before, and spoke ever after the Common Speech, the Westron as it was named, …
It appears at various other places in the Appendices other than the place you mention. I agree that Westron or the Common Speech “is feigned to have been turned into English”.

However, Gandalf is not an English name, not even an Old English name. Tolkien is just being inconsistent (or nonrigorous).Correct. I like your use of the word nonrigorous in referring to Westron where he ought to have said something like “name from a language related to Westron” instead of “Westron name”.

He could after all make mistakes! Just recall the self-created mess he had to dig himself out of regarding Thror-Thrain.I have never denied that. I do question that Tolkien wrote that in ‘proper’ Norse f would be pronounced [v] and wrote anything that suggested that readers of his book ought to pronounce Gandalf as though if ended in [v], other than in the statement that Galin dug up which I also consider to be non-rigorous usage. Tolkien would have meant, “… but the letter values would have been approximately those described.”

Just perhaps related -although I have no idea what JRRT's scholarly opinion was on the matter - might be the theory that in at least some regional OE pronunciations no distinction was made between voiced and unvoiced fricatives: [s] and [z], [f] and [v] were interchangeable (think of the slightly but not wholly stagey "Zummerzet" accent)Please cite your source.

General theory is that [s] and [z] were both normally spelled S/ſ/s, that [f] and [v] were both spelled F/f, and that [θ] and [ð] were normally both spelled either Þ/þ or Ð/ð. I do not remember ever encountering the idea that there was an Old English dialect that made no distinction between the two sound values of each of the letters. Pronunciation guides, so far as I have read, carefully distinguish when one of these letters should have the unvoiced pronunciation and when they should have the voiced pronunciation.

Psychologically the speakers of Old English likely tended to be mostly unaware that these letters had two pronunciations, just as many Modern English speakers are unaware that the letter combination th has two common pronunciations heard in thin [θɪn], breath [brɛθ] and then [ðɛn], breathe [briːð], but still pronounce them differently. That the two sounds of each letter were usually related would have inclined them not to notice the difference. Similarly many speakers of modern English do not notice that the pluralizing -s is sometimes pronounced [s] and sometimes pronounced [z] but still differentiate the sounds. Both [bɛtz] and [bɛds] would sound wrong for bets and beds respectively.

[Aiwendil]

However at least some earlier sources indicate the hard sound for þengel. See http://www.bosworthtoller.com/031660 for the page on þengel from Bosworth-Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary of 1898. According to the pronunciation guide at the centre top of the page the word is pronounced /θeŋɣel/. I cannot account for the vowel /ɣ/ but at least this is closer to J. R. R. Tolkien’s pronunciation. It suggests that the pronunciation provided by J. R. R. Tolkien was not simply an inexplicable error.

For what it's worth, I don't think the pronunciations given in the online Bosworth and Toller are all that reliable. Note the little asterisk that, when hovered over, says that the pronunciation is an experimental feature. I expect it is generated automatically by a computer program for each word.

I noticed this the other day when I saw that the spelling variants 'gyld' and 'gild' gave different pronunciations for the initial 'g' (apparently, /ɣ/ is assigned when the 'g' is followed by 'y' and /j/ when it's followed by 'i', which is perhaps a decent rule of thumb but by no means universally true). And for some reason, /ɣ/ seems to appear in all the places one would expect /g/, which would explain the strangeness with /θeŋɣel/.

[jallanite]

For what it's worth, I don't think the pronunciations given in the online Bosworth and Toller are all that reliable. Note the little asterisk that, when hovered over, says that the pronunciation is an experimental feature. I expect it is generated automatically by a computer program for each word.

Thanks for pointing that out. Then the electronic version of the dictionary gives no evidence for the correctness of J. R. R. Tolkien’s pronunciation of Thengel.

I note that both the online and printed Peter S. Baker Introduction to Old English gives the word þengel with a soft g (þenġel). See http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resources/IOE/postyle.html . I have come to the conclusion that Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation The[ndʒ]el is the commonly accepted pronunciation of the word.

Why J. R. R. Tolkien’s pronunciation differs I do not know. Possibly it was the standard pronunciation in an earlier era. Possibly J. R. R. Tolkien had a different theory. Possibly even today the pronunciation the[ndʒ]el over the[ŋɡ]el is still not really proved. Perhaps some day I will stumble across the article which explains the deduction.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"Westron nowhere appears in the book (save a couple of "actual" hobbit-names presented in App F”? Tolkien first mentions Westron in his Prologue where he writes:
And in those days also they forgot whatever languages they had used before, and spoke ever after the Common Speech, the Westron as it was named, …
It appears at various other places in the Appendices other than the place you mention. I agree that Westron or the Common Speech “is feigned to have been turned into English”.

What I was saying was that examples of actual Westron nowhere appear but in those names, not mentions of the Common Speech or Westron as a language.

[jallanite]

What I was saying was that examples of actual Westron nowhere appear but in those names, not mentions of the Common Speech or Westron as a language.

That is NOT what you said.

[jallanite]

Looking through some other Tolkien websites I found a post by Áhann Áhim posting under the name Mandos at http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread.php?24791-Westron-Pronunciation-quot-i-quot-%28as-Bifur%29 , post #6, which comments on Tolkien’s pronunciation of Thengel. Áhann posts in part:I just listened to Tolkien's reading of part of 'The Ride of the Rohirrim' (J.R.R. Tolkien Audio Collection, CD 2), where he does in fact pronounce Théoden's father as /þengel/. I'm unclear if this is a learned choice about Mercian Old English (if so, it goes against what his pupil, Alistair Campbell, wrote in his grammar, and against the standard view of most scholars before and since), or if Tolkien just aesthetically preferred that pronunciation, and so used it - since, after all, the Rohirrim aren't literally Anglo-Saxons, and he was therefore free to alter such details to his liking.
So seemingly Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation is indeed the standard one and J. R. R. Tolkien’s is non-standard.

[Elemmakil]

I think that it would not work this way either. I have not seen GOT, but I'd imagine it works well, because there is so much detail on everyday details, if you know what I mean. Like, in LOTR, you'd hardly expect to read about a trip to the privy because of an indigestion from last night's feast. And there is less detail in general - whereas GOT would describe a fight with all the moves and details and gore, LOTR would read "they fought and X won". The scope of LOTR makes it difficult to fit into x amount of hours, but its lack of details in the writing style makes it difficult to make a series without making it profane and ruined.

So I think that LOTR is, indeed, "on principle unsuited to transform into a visual form" as a whole. Parts have been done well in the movies, and there are many beautiful drawings, but I think you just can't reenact it from cover to cover and get it right. It's just like that. For lack of a better description - on principle.

Good point, though it is often PJ's thoughtless additions that create the bulk of the problems. I have oft times felt that if I could simply take PJs movies, edit out the bad additions (which, I think could actually be done in some cases without necessarily doing harm to the overall narrative) the whole could be significantly improved. Some things would need to be refilmed to fix, however, so that couldn't be done. For example, one could probably delete the whole bit about Aragorn falling off the cliff and "dying" in TT and it would hardly be missed, though the movie would then cleave that much more closely to the books. Ditto for some elements in Moria, like the whole bit about collapsing staircases over vast chasms. Even muting bits of annoying dialogue (such as the Ringwraith's use of "she-elf", as though they were descended from Tarzan) would help some scenes.

Mostly just an interesting thought experiment, but something I wish I could at least try and see what happens.

Another, related, thought experiment of mine would be to take Bakshi's animated and add or reshoot elements of that, along with dialogue, and make it truer to the books. Curiously, that probably *could* be done (from a technical perspective - I'm not going to touch the legal aspects, of course) using modern computer graphic software. One could even give Aragorn trousers, and get rid of Boromir's annoying horned helmet! Perhaps even have Gandalf say "Saruman!" instead of "Aruman!" By the by, I am semi serious about this; if anyone knows how one could accomplish the above (software required, rotoscoping, etc.) I would appreciate the insight.