The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún: Pre- and Reviews - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Morthoron · 05-13-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent2010

I am not understanding the issue people are having with Sanderson's critique. Compared to Shippey's it is pretty juvenile, but they are writing to two different audiences.

For whom is Sanderson writing, exactly? Usually book reviews are not so impertinent. The book reviews in my local paper, the Detroit Free Press, are certainly not on par with the New York Times, but they too have a different audience; however, the Free Press' reviews are merely more concise and generic, not jocose and insincere. It would seem to me that Mr. Sanderson is misguided regarding the audience for 'Sigurd'. The book's appeal is certainly not for the average film fan, anymore than a republishing of Tolkien's Beowulf translation would be. In a banal effort to be witty, Sanderson missed the point completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent2010

Sanderson mentions Jackson twice, he does not "continually" drop Jackson's name. He brings up film's success in the beginning and at the end makes a statement that refers to the Jackson 'fan franchise' probably going to be confused by the two stories. I don't like his tone in the first paragraph, but overall his review does bring up a poignant point.

Peter Jackson is the first person mentioned in the piece, and receives primary mention in the conclusion of the review. Go back to your Essay Writing 101 class, and you will find that, from a strictly technical standpoint, the piece is about Jackson and not Tolkien. J.R.R. Tolkien is not even mentioned in the introduction, nor is he mentioned in the conclusion, which is a summation of the writer's points. In any case, Sanderson seems to believe that 'Sigurd' would not have been published if it weren't for the films. He seems to have overlooked The Silmarillion (1978) and the 12 volume HoMe series (1983-1996), both hugely popular and neither requiring cross-pollination from the films to find a wide readership.

Estelyn Telcontar · 05-14-2009, 04:19 AM

Two threads on this subject have been merged here to make it easier for all to keep up with the discussion. Enjoy!

Aiwendil · 05-15-2009, 08:47 AM

Well, I've read it and rather enjoyed it. I was surprised initially by how different in tone and effect these lays are from Tolkien's Middle-earth-related lays, the 'Lay of Leithian' and, particularly, the alliterative 'Children of Hurin'. Tolkien's comments on the differences between Old English and Old Norse verse could equally well describe the differences between his lays of Middle-earth and of the old North. 'Sigurd' and 'Gudrun' are far shorter, more terse; they make use of quick, bold strokes and flashes of imagery rather than fully fleshed narrative. Even the individual half-lines are shorter; there's nary a syllable more than is absolutely needed in any of them. This produces a far more markedly rhythmic effect than in Tolkien's more English alliterative verse, but this comes at the cost of a great number of inversions and un-proselike word orderings; there was the occasional sentence that I had to read twice to parse.

I agree with some of the reviewers linked to that the 'Lay of Gudrun' is the better of the two. I think the reasons for this may be related to the stylistic points mentioned above. The action of 'Gudrun' is far more concentrated, limited to just a few episodes, than that of the 'Lay of the Volsungs', and it seems to lend itself to the style of this verse more than the latter. I thought several times as I was reading it that the 'Lay of the Volsungs' might be served better by Tolkien's English-style alliterative verse (the kind used in the alliterative 'Children of Hurin'). This is certainly not to say that I didn't enjoy it; and some episodes (e.g. the death of Sigurd) were very well done. On the other hand, one episode that I thought a little disappointing was the slaying of Fafnir. As a matter of fact, I was a bit surprised at how little a mark Fafnir himself makes upon the poem, considering Tolkien's opinion of him as 'the prince of all dragons'.

The chief element that Tolkien added to the story, the role appointed for Sigurd in the Ragnarok, is a well-placed stroke. It at once lends an overarching purpose to the narrative and explains the sometimes confusing role that Odin plays in it. It also makes the story less of an 'amoral' one (whether that's good or bad is, I suppose, a matter of taste). And, of course, it only strengthens the association between Sigurd and Turin. With other, smaller, changes, Tolkien does a very good job of making sense out of confusing or contradictory points in the sources.

The commentary and explanatory material provided by Christopher Tolkien (and largely drawn from lectures and notes by his father) is wonderful. I particularly enjoyed the appendix on the origin of the legends, which is better than all the other brief treatments of that topic that I've read combined. In the commentary, Christopher Tolkien compares in some detail the stories found in these Lays with those in their sources, the Volsunga Saga, the Edda of Snorri Sturluson, and various poems from the so-called 'Elder Edda'.

05-14-2009, 04:19 AM	#2
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	Moderator's note Two threads on this subject have been merged here to make it easier for all to keep up with the discussion. Enjoy! __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-15-2009, 08:47 AM	#3
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	Well, I've read it and rather enjoyed it. I was surprised initially by how different in tone and effect these lays are from Tolkien's Middle-earth-related lays, the 'Lay of Leithian' and, particularly, the alliterative 'Children of Hurin'. Tolkien's comments on the differences between Old English and Old Norse verse could equally well describe the differences between his lays of Middle-earth and of the old North. 'Sigurd' and 'Gudrun' are far shorter, more terse; they make use of quick, bold strokes and flashes of imagery rather than fully fleshed narrative. Even the individual half-lines are shorter; there's nary a syllable more than is absolutely needed in any of them. This produces a far more markedly rhythmic effect than in Tolkien's more English alliterative verse, but this comes at the cost of a great number of inversions and un-proselike word orderings; there was the occasional sentence that I had to read twice to parse. I agree with some of the reviewers linked to that the 'Lay of Gudrun' is the better of the two. I think the reasons for this may be related to the stylistic points mentioned above. The action of 'Gudrun' is far more concentrated, limited to just a few episodes, than that of the 'Lay of the Volsungs', and it seems to lend itself to the style of this verse more than the latter. I thought several times as I was reading it that the 'Lay of the Volsungs' might be served better by Tolkien's English-style alliterative verse (the kind used in the alliterative 'Children of Hurin'). This is certainly not to say that I didn't enjoy it; and some episodes (e.g. the death of Sigurd) were very well done. On the other hand, one episode that I thought a little disappointing was the slaying of Fafnir. As a matter of fact, I was a bit surprised at how little a mark Fafnir himself makes upon the poem, considering Tolkien's opinion of him as 'the prince of all dragons'. The chief element that Tolkien added to the story, the role appointed for Sigurd in the Ragnarok, is a well-placed stroke. It at once lends an overarching purpose to the narrative and explains the sometimes confusing role that Odin plays in it. It also makes the story less of an 'amoral' one (whether that's good or bad is, I suppose, a matter of taste). And, of course, it only strengthens the association between Sigurd and Turin. With other, smaller, changes, Tolkien does a very good job of making sense out of confusing or contradictory points in the sources. The commentary and explanatory material provided by Christopher Tolkien (and largely drawn from lectures and notes by his father) is wonderful. I particularly enjoyed the appendix on the origin of the legends, which is better than all the other brief treatments of that topic that I've read combined. In the commentary, Christopher Tolkien compares in some detail the stories found in these Lays with those in their sources, the Volsunga Saga, the Edda of Snorri Sturluson, and various poems from the so-called 'Elder Edda'.