Split Personality?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

What hasn't been brought up is that Tolkien was very unlikely to have agreed to the sale given his druthers. The fact was, he had just purchased a pricey house in the toney resort town of Poole, and then, after tying up all his liquid assets, was hit with an enormous tax bill at the confiscatory rates of 1960's Britain. He needed ready money and needed it fast.

[Sauron the White]

WilliamCH .. if you do find the support that goes with that story I would be most interested in reading it.

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

Only if you see the selling of something you think is worthless swampland for a good amount of money as possibly unethical or at the very least questionable.

[Morwen]

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

I don't see why it should be.

The purchaser bought the film rights of a published work. Presumably, someone would have read it before money changed hands. If that's the case, Tolkien could not misrepresent what was being sold nor could the purchaser claim to be mistaken about the nature of what was being purchased. Tolkien may have thought the film rights were worthless but he isn't guilty of duping anyone. If people know that you are selling swampland and they agree to purchase it anyway, then good luck to them.

[alatar]

Just thought, while it was fresh in the mind to note that in the Christian Bible (Judges 15: 15-16) Samson kills a thousand men with a donkey mandible.

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

Then Samson said,
"With a donkey's jawbone
I have made donkeys of them.
With a donkey's jawbone
I have killed a thousand men."

How is this perceived? As an exact counting, or as a way of saying, 'more than would be considered normal'?

Note that we're not discussing religion, but I think the author's intent and precise history.

[littlemanpoet]

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them. That is not, however, what the LotR book lovers are saying about the Lotr movies. The secondary world doesn't come off because there are too many inconsistencies such that it doesn't work: some scenes and events in the movies don't accord with the laws in the world of the movies.

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Not exactly sure what you're saying, but my point is that the Samson story doesn't stick out in my head, and isn't featured large in skeptics criticisms with all things religious as it seemingly 'fits.' Whether it were 100 or a thousand, the point is made that Samson put a big hurt on the enemy and did so by himself. And his weapon of choice I assume was also chosen to humiliate his enemies and to show how weak they were. Hope that that's more clear.

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it. Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

I will try with an example.

I just finished reading the final Harry Potter novel (I'll give nothing away here). While reading it, I never came across anything that didn't fit the logic of the story and world. That is to say, I was in the milieu and the story never set anything up that contradicted the milieu. Rowling was quite consistent from beginning to end of the entire project, as far as I can tell. Her ability to do this was an achievement that Tolkien, in On Faerie Stories (a very important essay about writing myth and fantasy that ought to be read by anyone who wants to discuss such things), denoted as successfully subcreating a secondary world; the proof of her success is that it engenders Secondary Belief in her readers. If, at any point, Rowling had written anything in her story such that, say, Newtonian Physics overruled wandlore, it would have contradicted the entire milieu and the "spell" of Secondary Belief would have been broken. At this point I would have had to choose to adopt Suspension of Disbelief in order to overlook the contradiction and try to re-enter the milieu.

In the first case, there is an organic belief occurring such that the reader and writer are more or less communicating mind-to-mind, as it were. In the second, the organic connection has been broken, and the reader must make a conscious effort of the will to make work of interacting with the "breached edifice", trying to ignore the breach.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it.

Sorry, I was referring without naming to a specific school of thought, often called on these "the literati", who confronted Tolkien upon the original publication of the works. They did and still do look down their noses at fantasy and myth as not worthy of their consideration as serious literature, because it does not fit the rules they believe every work of literature ought to follow, by which they mean the modern novel with its flawed characters, relative morality, in-the-head characterization, etc. Be sure that I'm not condemning the modern novel; what I don't appreciate is the out of hand rejection of myth and fantasy because the literati refuse to countenance it, demanding it to fit their own terms.

I can see from what I've just written that you would criticize me of doing the same thing to Jackson's movies as opposed to Tolkien's books. But there is a seminal difference: Tolkien didn't buy the rights to Hemingway, for example, in order to write LotR.

Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

One would be foolish to deny such a possibility.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.