[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I made reference to the "One Ring dot Net" article above, by Ostadan, because I thought the author did a credible job of raising some disturbing questions about the long-delayed-and-now-deliberately-inflated-and-extended "Hobbit" movie project. For example, Ostadan quotes Peter Jackson saying:

"In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn't have a clue what Gandalf was doing."

Ostadan then offers what I consider a trenchent rebuttal, supported by an appropriate reference to Tolkien's letters:

Since Gandalf does tell us what he was doing, though without unnecessary details, this is an extremely odd thing to say. The storytelling purpose of Gandalf’s absence, of course, is explained by Tolkien in a letter (Letters, #257, 1964): “[The Necromancer’s function] … was hardly more than to provide a reason for Gandalf going away and laving Bilbo and the Dwarves to fend for themselves, which was necessary for the tale.” Tolkien had a good sense of what was necessary in his story.

I only wish that Ostadan had included the following text from The Hobbit, Chapter 10 in further support of his argument:

So you see Bilbo had come in the end by the only road that was any good. It might have been some comfort to Mr. Baggins shivering on the barrels, if he had known that news of this had reached Gandalf far away and given him great anxiety, and that he was in fact finishing his other business (which does not come into this tale) and getting ready to come in search of Thorin's company. But Bilbo did not know it.

Now obviously, from this passage alone, one can glean that Tolkien knew a great deal about Gandalf's whereabouts, specifically (1) that he had gone far away, (2) that he had gotten news of Bilbo's progress, (3) that this caused him some anxiety, (4) that he had finished his other business, (5) that he planned on going in search of Thorin's company, and -- most importantly -- (6) that this other business of Gandalf's "does not come into this tale." I count six clues, not zero.

It seems to me, therefore, that Peter Jackson does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to making comments about what J. R. R. Tolkien knew of of his own tale, why he wrote it the way he did, and why leaving Gandalf and his "other business" out of the story at critical junctures occurred not out of any accident or oversight, but by a well-considered understanding of how to tell a hero's tale without diminishing the hero (Bilbo) by making the supernatural helper (Gandalf) the hero instead. Tolkien knew his business -- mythic literature -- and for Peter Jackson to claim that Tolkien "didn't have a clue" has to rank as one of the dumbest and least-defensible things the director/producer has ever said.

Now I've got to get about the business of sending Ostadan a congratulatory "thank you" for a job well done.