The Children of Hurin - The Film - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

tumhalad2 · 01-17-2011, 01:14 AM

Before you castigate me for putting a topic with the above title in the book section, please hear me out.

On the release of the Children of Hurin in 2007, almost all reviews were positive - but many also contained an element of surprise and sometimes, even astonishment. See Andrew O'Hehir's review at salon.com for a quintissential example:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/17/hurin

The Turin story caught many reviewers off guard. The themes, style, the characters and the setting of the new book were new and different, Fresh. To paraphrase many a reviewer, not really like the Tolkien we'd all come to know and love. Of course, those of us familiar with Unfinished Tales knew what to expect, but the sheer power of the standalone work, encased as it was in a beautifully designed dust jacket, and bejeweled with the atmospheric illustrations of Alan Lee, seemed to surprise and amaze many who confessed they had not been drawn to Tolkien's more famous "kiddie" or "escapist" works. See, for example, Bryan Appleyard's review in the Sunday Times:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1613657.ece

For quite some time now, I've been intrigued by the reception of CoH in the media and by lay readers unfamiliar with Tolkien. Here on these boards, of course, I recently reanimated the discussion about CoH and its place in Tolkien's philosophy, "Turin the Hopeless":

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13878

That thread began with a quote from John Garth's review in the Telegraph, which contrasts the providential feel The Lord of the Rings, exemplified in Gandalf's musings to Frodo ("you were meant to have it") with the atheistic uncertainty of The Children of Hurin, exemplified in Sador Labadel, one of Tolkien's most interesting characters. The debate eventually seemed to fizzle out (please feel free to reanimate it again!) and I feel there is much yet to discuss, and many implications that have yet to be unpacked. Indeed, I'm even considering doing some further research and writing a book about all this one day, focusing on CoH itself, its reception, its meaning in light of the "legendarium" etc. But for now, in this thread, I'd like to discuss something a bit tangential to that theme.

In light of the reception to CoH in the media, I've always thought that a film version of the book would be interesting. Even though the book was popular, books never have as wide a market appeal as films do. At the moment the public's conception of Tolkien is still dominated by memes that relate primarily to TLoTR - "hobbits", "elves", "orcs", but also "magic rings", "dark lords", "good and evil", and even generic themes like "heroism", "courage" etc. No matter which way you look at it, many of the dominant memes that have migrated from the writing of the author JRR Tolkien, nvolve themes, characters, settings and ideas that spring from his most well known work. Nothing surprising there, but that's not the point.

What if a movie of CoH were made? As we have seen, the impact of the book on those who read it was in many cases profound, or at least the experience led them to reevaluate their image and conception of Tolkien himself. That is powerful. A film version could reach a much larger audience. How do you think an audience would receive a film version? With some degree of cognitive dissonance, as seems to have been the case with many readers of the book? Would it allow for a more general reappraisal of Tolkien's works as a whole? Personally, I think it would, and furthermore, I think that would be a good thing.

In the thread "Turin the Hopeless", others pointed out that Tolkien will still be viewed through the lens of The Lord of the Rings
, and that people will assume Tolkien's worldview can largely be extrapolated from that work alone. He hates industrialisation, thinks the world is suffused with a providential purpose, etc. But what if audiences were exposed to one of Tolkien's tales on the big screen that largely opposes many of these themes, and contradicts them?

As it stands, CoH doesn't yet seem to have made much of a critical dent, but in those places where it has been explored, it has provoked some interesting and potentially paradigm shifting discussion. It begs questions about Tolkien's religiosity, and the degree to which he reasoned with it, questions about his wider motives and goals, about his aspirations and hopes, but most importantly, questions about the "type" of world Middle-earth really is, in a "metaphysical" sense. The answers to these questions have implications for our appreciation of Tolkien's other, more familiar works, and I get the feeling that CoH challenged many a reviewer's received wisdom about Tolkien's treatment of morality, etc.

So, alot to take in, but think of this as a follow up post to the "Turing the Hopeless" thread

Nerwen · 01-17-2011, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tumhalad

It begs questions about Tolkien's religiosity, and the degree to which he reasoned with it, questions about his wider motives and goals, about his aspirations and hopes, but most importantly, questions about the "type" of world Middle-earth really is, in a "metaphysical" sense.

tumhalad, I've already said all I intend to say about CoH and your notions on the interpretation thereof on the "Turin the Hopeless" thread, so I will not repeat myself here. But I'd like a clarification: in what way do you mean the book "begs questions" about its author? Is that even possible?

A review or analysis might do this, but surely not the book itself.

Or do you mean it raises questions? Not the same thing.

As for your main topic–I rather think this belongs in the "Movies" forum (where in fact the question has been raised more than once, as I recall).

tumhalad2 · 01-17-2011, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

tumhalad, I've already said all I intend to say about CoH and your notions on the interpretation thereof on the "Turin the Hopeless" thread, so I will not repeat myself here. But I'd like a clarification: in what way do you mean the book "begs questions" about its author? Is that even possible?

A review or analysis might do this, but surely not the book itself.

Or do you mean it raises questions? Not the same thing.

To my mind, "begs" and "raises" really means the same thing. I don't appreciate the difference. When I write that the book "begs" the question, I mean that when I first read it, I began to engage with it and ask questions of it, and by extension its author. I hope that clears that up. Reviews and analyses are presumably written by people who have read the book, so they ask questions during and after the process of reading. This seems to me like a completely natural and straightforward process.

Nerwen · 01-17-2011, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

To my mind, "begs" and "raises" really means the same thing. I don't appreciate the difference.

Well, you should, especially given your literary aspirations, because the phrase "to beg the question" actually refers to a type of logical fallacy (cf. the link I gave).

tumhalad2 · 01-17-2011, 06:31 AM

There is such a thing as colloquial language - and "beg the question" in colloquial register has much the same meaning as "raise the question". At least it does where I'm from, and that's the meaning in which I meant it. All this should be evident from the context of my post. None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, so let's move on.

Nerwen · 01-17-2011, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

There is such a thing as colloquial language - and "beg the question" in colloquial register has much the same meaning as "raise the question". At least it does where I'm from, and that's the meaning in which I meant it. All this should be evident from the context of my post. None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, so let's move on.

But I thought this was a very serious literary topic, regarding which discussions are reanimated, paradigms are shifted and implications are unpacked? Surely such slang (mis)usage is out of place?

(Besides, the proper concept of "begging the question" is such a useful one...)

Pitchwife · 01-17-2011, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, you should, especially given your literally aspirations

But, Nerwen, surely you meant "literary"?

Nerwen · 01-17-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

But, Nerwen, surely you meant "literary"?

Dear me! I surely did!

I could have sworn that's what I typed. Curse this late-night posting!

01-17-2011, 01:14 AM	#1
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	The Children of Hurin - The Film Before you castigate me for putting a topic with the above title in the book section, please hear me out. On the release of the Children of Hurin in 2007, almost all reviews were positive - but many also contained an element of surprise and sometimes, even astonishment. See Andrew O'Hehir's review at salon.com for a quintissential example: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/17/hurin The Turin story caught many reviewers off guard. The themes, style, the characters and the setting of the new book were new and different, Fresh. To paraphrase many a reviewer, not really like the Tolkien we'd all come to know and love. Of course, those of us familiar with Unfinished Tales knew what to expect, but the sheer power of the standalone work, encased as it was in a beautifully designed dust jacket, and bejeweled with the atmospheric illustrations of Alan Lee, seemed to surprise and amaze many who confessed they had not been drawn to Tolkien's more famous "kiddie" or "escapist" works. See, for example, Bryan Appleyard's review in the Sunday Times: http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1613657.ece For quite some time now, I've been intrigued by the reception of CoH in the media and by lay readers unfamiliar with Tolkien. Here on these boards, of course, I recently reanimated the discussion about CoH and its place in Tolkien's philosophy, "Turin the Hopeless": http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13878 That thread began with a quote from John Garth's review in the Telegraph, which contrasts the providential feel The Lord of the Rings, exemplified in Gandalf's musings to Frodo ("you were meant to have it") with the atheistic uncertainty of The Children of Hurin, exemplified in Sador Labadel, one of Tolkien's most interesting characters. The debate eventually seemed to fizzle out (please feel free to reanimate it again!) and I feel there is much yet to discuss, and many implications that have yet to be unpacked. Indeed, I'm even considering doing some further research and writing a book about all this one day, focusing on CoH itself, its reception, its meaning in light of the "legendarium" etc. But for now, in this thread, I'd like to discuss something a bit tangential to that theme. In light of the reception to CoH in the media, I've always thought that a film version of the book would be interesting. Even though the book was popular, books never have as wide a market appeal as films do. At the moment the public's conception of Tolkien is still dominated by memes that relate primarily to TLoTR - "hobbits", "elves", "orcs", but also "magic rings", "dark lords", "good and evil", and even generic themes like "heroism", "courage" etc. No matter which way you look at it, many of the dominant memes that have migrated from the writing of the author JRR Tolkien, nvolve themes, characters, settings and ideas that spring from his most well known work. Nothing surprising there, but that's not the point. What if a movie of CoH were made? As we have seen, the impact of the book on those who read it was in many cases profound, or at least the experience led them to reevaluate their image and conception of Tolkien himself. That is powerful. A film version could reach a much larger audience. How do you think an audience would receive a film version? With some degree of cognitive dissonance, as seems to have been the case with many readers of the book? Would it allow for a more general reappraisal of Tolkien's works as a whole? Personally, I think it would, and furthermore, I think that would be a good thing. In the thread "Turin the Hopeless", others pointed out that Tolkien will still be viewed through the lens of The Lord of the Rings , and that people will assume Tolkien's worldview can largely be extrapolated from that work alone. He hates industrialisation, thinks the world is suffused with a providential purpose, etc. But what if audiences were exposed to one of Tolkien's tales on the big screen that largely opposes many of these themes, and contradicts them? As it stands, CoH doesn't yet seem to have made much of a critical dent, but in those places where it has been explored, it has provoked some interesting and potentially paradigm shifting discussion. It begs questions about Tolkien's religiosity, and the degree to which he reasoned with it, questions about his wider motives and goals, about his aspirations and hopes, but most importantly, questions about the "type" of world Middle-earth really is, in a "metaphysical" sense. The answers to these questions have implications for our appreciation of Tolkien's other, more familiar works, and I get the feeling that CoH challenged many a reviewer's received wisdom about Tolkien's treatment of morality, etc. So, alot to take in, but think of this as a follow up post to the "Turing the Hopeless" thread Last edited by tumhalad2; 01-17-2011 at 01:30 AM.

01-17-2011, 06:31 AM	#5
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	There is such a thing as colloquial language - and "beg the question" in colloquial register has much the same meaning as "raise the question". At least it does where I'm from, and that's the meaning in which I meant it. All this should be evident from the context of my post. None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, so let's move on.