"How does one pronounce Tolkien?"

[davem]

The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a
visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes one visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progenitive. It is at once more universal and more poignantly particular. If it speaks of bread or wine or stone or tree, it appeals to the whole ofthese things, to their ideas; yet each hearer will give to them a peculiar personal embodimentin his imagination. Should the story say “he ate bread,” the dramatic producer or painter canonly show ”a piece of bread” according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story willthink of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own. If a story says “he climbed a
hill and saw a river in the valley below,” the illustrator may catch, or nearly catch, his ownvision of such a scene; but every hearer of the words will have his own picture, and it willbe made out of all the hills and rivers and dales he has ever seen, but especially out of TheHill, The River, The Valley which were for him the first embodiment of the word.Tolkien: On Fairy Stories

This is the whole point, for me - the reader as 'co-creator' of the story, & this is the difference between drama & literature. Drama, whether on stage or film, is given to the viewer - the look, the sounds, the words & their pronunciation - the viewer is effectively a passive observer with no control or input into the experience. Literature on the other hand is a participatory event - the characters look & sound how the reader decides, their names are pronounced by the reader, not the writer. The writer must be aware of this too. And this personalises the experience of the story - the Lord of the Rings I experience when I read is different to the one you experience when you read it - because its full of my Hills, Rivers & Valleys. Pronunciation of names of people & places is part of that personal experience, & the more we attempt to achieve a 'proper' uniform pronunciation, or single, agreed picture of a place or character, the more detatched we become from that unique experience of the story. If it was possible to see the characters & places of Middle-earth exactly as Tolkien himself saw them should we all make ourselves see them in that way? In the excerpt I gave earlier from OFS Tolkien seems to argue that would actually be a mistake, because the reader would have no input into the experience of the Story & therefore it would not touch them in the same way. Why is the pronunciation of names different from the images of places & characters - Tolkien effectively states that the reader must be free to imagine the world & its inhabitants as they will for the story to work, & I can't see how the pronunciation of names & words is a different case.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Ha, brilliant point, davem. I consider myself knowing On Fairy Stories very well and basically remembering something from it all the time, even this particular part (I have always applied that one to criticise the movies ), but it never occured to me to apply it in this way. Once again a proof of how well can a company of people contribute while single person's thinking always remains limited.

Let me just note, I have never thought that Tolkien was so close in his thoughts to the reader-response criticism - in the light of this, this certainly is something related. Just, like, I never thought of that.

But anyway, that means, long live Tsirith Ungol! (As that's the one, of all of them, which I just cannot discard )

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I consider myself knowing On Fairy Stories very well and basically remembering something from it all the time, even this particular part (I have always applied that one to criticise the movies )

Its kind of odd to read reviews of the movies where people comment that 'Jacksons' Shire/Moria/Minas Tirith/....... (fill in the blank) was exactly/not at all as I imagined it', & are happy to accept that different people will 'see' Middle-earth in different ways, but when it comes to pronunciation of names & words people simply accept that because Jackson got in 'experts' to give cast & crew the correct pronunciations they must be accepted - I rarely if ever hear the comment 'The cast's pronunciation of 'Minas Tirith'/ Legolas/(fitb) was exactly/not at all as I imagined it'. Its almost as if some people are afraid to get it wrong (which seems to imply that reading the books is, or involves, a test of some kind, which the reader can either pass or fail).

My own position is that just as one is free to imagine (in fact, according to Tolkien quoted earlier, will both inevitably & rightly imagine) the world of the story in their own unique way, which will bring it alive for them in a way that no illustration or dramatisation could, so they must be free to 'hear' that world as they will - for the same reason. Of course, one is limited by the text to some degree - one may pronounce 'Feanor' as Fee-an-or, Fay-an-or or Fee-nor but one would not pronounce it 'Stephen'.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by davem

...but when it comes to pronunciation of names & words people simply accept that because Jackson got in 'experts' to give cast & crew the correct pronunciations they must be accepted - I rarely if ever hear the comment 'The cast's pronunciation of 'Minas Tirith'/ Legolas/(fitb) was exactly/not at all as I imagined it'. Its almost as if some people are afraid to get it wrong (which seems to imply that reading the books is, or involves, a test of some kind, which the reader can either pass or fail).

This would be an acceptable nitpick if the cast's pronunciations were always correct and included a general concept of accent marks and diareses. (Still waiting on the extra syllable in "Earendil".) As it is I cringe most at whenever Frolijah says "Mohdoh," considering that book!Frodo is supposed to be canonically good at foreign sounds.

Because Tolkien gave specific rules on pronuncation, I think a better parallel would be to compare pronunciation to, say, the doors at Moria, where we're given a specific drawing as to how it looked. If the Jackson films had deviated from that at all, claiming that it was Frodo's faulty memory reconstructing it (which would be well within their rights, since Moria is explicitly called Moria ['black shadow', only used post-Balrog] on the door), there would have been so much howling!

Although to be fair the parallel isn't perfect as the pronunciation rules come from the Appendices and not from the text itself, and the Appendices are specifically only for those who really want to know more.

Ultimately I think the whole thing is a bunch of pedantry as we geeks try to one-up each other. As I said earlier, I personally try to get my own pronunciation as close to the recommended ones as possible, but that's because I am a pedant and a linguistics geek to boot. If you want to pronounce them differently that's fine... but woe to you if you want to market that pronunciation!

Mirkgirl's points are actually really good ones: to what extent have translators adapted spellings to fit with pronunciations? Does Tolkien's translator's guide give any hints?


P.S. to Eonwe... Frodo at least probably got his transcriptions and pronunciations right; the other hobbits however tended to have really bad Shire accents when it came to the Elvish tongues.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Because Tolkien gave specific rules on pronuncation, I think a better parallel would be to compare pronunciation to, say, the doors at Moria, where we're given a specific drawing as to how it looked. .

Except... the doors may have looked right, but to me they seemed too small - I envisioned them to be about twice the size on reading the book. Still, that's not a problem for me, as I'm fairly fine with any concept of Middle-earth either visual or 'audial', as an individual take.

And if you go with the Translator Conceit, then even Tolkien the Translator could have been wrong about the correct pronunciation of languages which disappeared thousands of years ago. In fact, one could argue that individual pronunciations, avoiding the idea of 'correct/incorrect' fit that idea better than the kind of 'geekish' precision you're talking about. I note that we don't worry about the 'correct' pronunciation of the names in Homer or Malory ('You say 'Lance-e-lot', I say 'Launce-e-lot'').

Ultimately I think the whole thing is a bunch of pedantry as we geeks try to one-up each other. As I said earlier, I personally try to get my own pronunciation as close to the recommended ones as possible, but that's because I am a pedant and a linguistics geek to boot. If you want to pronounce them differently that's fine... but woe to you if you want to market that pronunciation!

I think the problem is that it can exclude the reader who doesn't have the time (or inclination) to study the subject of Tolkienian linguistics, & make then feel 'second class citizens' in Middle-earth, & I'm sure it must annoy those who really don't like the 'correct' pronunciations & feel happier & more at home with their own.

As to 'marketing my pronunciations' - that's exactly the opposite of what I'm advocating - I'm for going with what feels right for the individual.

[Mnemosyne]

davem, by "marketing" I meant such things as adaptations with an audio component and/or settings of Tolkien songs, not simply telling people to pronounce things "your way"--things that actually make money off the notion that this adheres to Tolkien in the details.

And if we want to talk about making people feel like second class fans, pronunciation pedantry pales compared to, "You haven't read x?!?" (Although pronunciation is perhaps the most obvious form of this.) I first set out to read the Silm because people were telling me I still wasn't a true Tolkien fan yet.

You actually do have a very interesting point on the "reconstructed" pronunciations... it rather reminds me of how you're "supposed" to pronounce classical Latin and Greek. We all know that this may be nothing like how it's actually pronounced, but we agree on it for clarity's sake. This is also why I'm so intrigued by words like "Nargothrond," which are pronounced one way according to the "official" rules but always scan differently in the Lays. One is tempted to say that there are exceptions, even in Elvish, that we will never know about.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

davem, by "marketing" I meant such things as adaptations with an audio component and/or settings of Tolkien songs, not simply telling people to pronounce things "your way"--things that actually make money off the notion that this adheres to Tolkien in the details.

I'm still intrigued as to why 'correct' pronunciation is so important - much more so than imagery - after all, Tolkien did produce illustrations of Middle-earth, for TH, LotR & The Si, but no-one seems to bother if an illustrator goes their own way & ignores Tolkien's own imagery in favour of their own. Take a look at these which were issud as a stamp set a few years ago: http://www.norphil.co.uk/2004/2004im...trblokbull.jpg

Check the second row - pic 1 is Orthanc, pic 3 is Barad-dur, pic 4 is Minas(Mynas ) Tirith. That's how Tolkien visualised those places. Should we be bound by them, & make ourselves see those places in the way he depicted them? I'd say, no, because while they may have worked for Tolkien they won't work for most of his readers. If its ok to visualise a place in the story in your own way, then why is thee an issue with pronouncing the names in your own way?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien effectively states that the reader must be free to imagine the world & its inhabitants as they will for the story to work, & I can't see how the pronunciation of names & words is a different case.

Not to mention the fact that the hobbits (even Frodo), who are the "authors" of the story, probably didn't pronounce the place names 100% correctly either. And what is correct anyway? Isn't the most commonly used pronunciation the accepted one after all?