"How does one pronounce Tolkien?"

[Mnemosyne]

Depends. The difficulty is that the pronunciation guides were published as part of Lord of the Rings, albeit in the Appendices. Which means that they are not placed nearly as high on the hierarchy of accuracy as, say, the doors to Moria or the maps or the fact that Aragorn had grey eyes.

But how many visual cues about Middle-earth came from Tolkien during his lifetime?

I think the difference is that envisioning something from a book takes much more imagination--and thus much more effort and wiggle room--for the reader than simply pronouncing a foreign word. You're given more liberty simply because of the differences in medium (so, we could have two completely different-looking, but equally canonical "Frodo"s but however we say his name it's going to sound pretty similar).

The other thing is that we're given guidelines--which Tolkien says we don't have to follow if we don't want to!--in the books themselves, and we know that Tolkien expended a lot more effort into languages than into illustrating (though he spent a lot on both!).

What would be really interesting now would be to hop 20 years or so down the road and see how much the "your mileage may vary" attitude towards mental pictures remains as more and more people enter the fandom with the Jackson films ingrained in their heads.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Depends. The difficulty is that the pronunciation guides were published as part of Lord of the Rings, albeit in the Appendices. Which means that they are not placed nearly as high on the hierarchy of accuracy as, say, the doors to Moria or the maps or the fact that Aragorn had grey eyes.

And the Appendices are optional reading (& as I pointed out previously, there was a single volume edition of LotR published during Tolkien's lifetime which omitted the Appendices altogether apart from The Tale of Aragorn & Arwen). This being the case, I asked, firstly, is one's experience of the story lessened in some way if one does not read the Appendices & has no idea of the 'correct' pronunciation of the story, & secondly, if one does read & 'obey' the pronunciation guide in the Appendices, is one's experience of the story 'enhanced' by that, or does the sacrifice of one's own original pronunciations actually take something of that original experience away?

But how many visual cues about Middle-earth came from Tolkien during his lifetime?

And if Allen & Unwin had decided that the Appendices were an unnecessary part of the book & simply refused to print them - or Tolkien hadn't been able to bring them into publishable form - wouldn't the pronunciations be as optional as the illustrations?

What would be really interesting now would be to hop 20 years or so down the road and see how much the "your mileage may vary" attitude towards mental pictures remains as more and more people enter the fandom with the Jackson films ingrained in their heads.

It would - and also to what extent the video games affect that mental imagery too - & in many other ways besides the simple pictures. I haven't played any of them (or intend to) but I notice that there are a lot more prominent female characters in the games, a lot more magic users (& casual use of magic), & I even read a report that mixed race (ie human-elf, hobbit-dwarf, etc, etc) & same sex relationships are options in the game world too. All these things affect one's perceptions of the world of M-e & the way one conceives/visualises it. Beyond that, the screenshots I've seen depict a countryside & landscape which is often subtly (& sometimes not so subtly at all) different to the English countryside that inspired Tolkien - in fact when I look at said screenshots I'm reminded much more of pictures of North American countryside with a 'New Zealandish' overlay inspired by the movies. My Middle-earth is an English Middle-earth & looks like the landscapes I know & is nothing like the game world. What this means is that, yes, the look of Middle-earth is becoming incresingly as 'fixed' as the sound, & the reader has less & less freedom to participate in the creation of Middle-earth in their own mind. Many readers from now on will only have the 'correct' pronunciation in their heads because they will come to the books via the movies & the games. I would argue that their whole experience will be lessened by that - they will get the pronunciation right, but only because they will never have had the freedom to get it 'wrong'. Increasingly we will achieve a uniform sound & vision of Middle-earth. More & more manifestations of M-e will actually result in a more precisely defined & limited experience - all in the name of 'authenticity'.

This is worse than Mordor!' said Sam. 'Much worse in a way. It comes home to you, as they say; because it is home, and you remember it before it was all ruined.'

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by davem

And the Appendices are optional reading (& as I pointed out previously, there was a single volume edition of LotR published during Tolkien's lifetime which omitted the Appendices altogether apart from The Tale of Aragorn & Arwen). This being the case, I asked, firstly, is one's experience of the story lessened in some way if one does not read the Appendices & has no idea of the 'correct' pronunciation of the story, & secondly, if one does read & 'obey' the pronunciation guide in the Appendices, is one's experience of the story 'enhanced' by that, or does the sacrifice of one's own original pronunciations actually take something of that original experience away?

No, not of the story. But one could argue that one's experience of the world is different since the languages provide such a grounding.

I would not say that the experience is "enhanced" or "detracted" if a reader chooses to adopt Tolkien's pronunciations (which is ultimately what he says the point of the Appendices is--to provide you with more information if you want it), merely altered. And honestly there's so little of the original experience that you can ever get back on a second reading, simply because you already know what happens.

Similarly, does knowledge of the Silm enhance or detract a reader's experience of rereading LotR?

I think that ultimately because of the nature of knowledge you can only go deeper when you're rereading LotR, even if you don't intend to--unless you get Alzheimer's.

And if Allen & Unwin had decided that the Appendices were an unnecessary part of the book & simply refused to print them - or Tolkien hadn't been able to bring them into publishable form - wouldn't the pronunciations be as optional as the illustrations?

Absolutely. But they were published, and when you consider the extent to which Tolkien himself considered things published as "set in stone" it makes sense that they get this status. I'm still very intrigued by the completely different natures of all the Appendices, due to the fact that they were somewhat rushed to print--how in one you get some very English-looking "Real Shire Month" names and how in another you learn that the "Real Shire" sounded nothing like English.

If Tolkien had had more time to dither about these, because A&U rejected them, they would be completely different from what they are. But once they got published Tolkien tried his best to treat them as they were as set in stone. So I think that the pronunciations do require a somewhat elevated status compared to the illustrations if you're selling your take on it--though not nearly as high as the facts presented in the text itself.

It would - and also to what extent the video games affect that mental imagery too - & in many other ways besides the simple pictures. I haven't played any of them (or intend to) but I notice that there are a lot more prominent female characters in the games, a lot more magic users (& casual use of magic), & I even read a report that mixed race (ie human-elf, hobbit-dwarf, etc, etc) & same sex relationships are options in the game world too. All these things affect one's perceptions of the world of M-e & the way one conceives/visualises it.

I'm not terribly concerned about the video games, actually--most of the people I've talked to IRL have been more than willing to admit that it's just a gamerization of Middle-earth and not to be taken seriously, especially when you read the actual books. Just as I'm not concerned that David Wenham is going to strongly affect anyone's reading of Faramir--not for a while at least.

And there are other visualizations that, if made available, would help counteract the monolithicness of the Jacksonian vision. I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.

Beyond that, the screenshots I've seen depict a countryside & landscape which is often subtly (& sometimes not so subtly at all) different to the English countryside that inspired Tolkien - in fact when I look at said screenshots I'm reminded much more of pictures of North American countryside with a 'New Zealandish' overlay inspired by the movies. My Middle-earth is an English Middle-earth & looks like the landscapes I know & is nothing like the game world.

So, what do you think of this situation: someone grows up seeing the landscape as presented in the games and the films, reads the books, and finds that the "actual" Middle-earth is nothing like these on levels of characterization and general mood. S/he then, surmising that Tolkien's landscapes are English since he was English, adapts his/her mental picture to fit along with a more English landscape.

Is this considered better or worse than this reader sticking with his/her original visualizations?

What this means is that, yes, the look of Middle-earth is becoming incresingly as 'fixed' as the sound, & the reader has less & less freedom to participate in the creation of Middle-earth in their own mind. Many readers from now on will only have the 'correct' pronunciation in their heads because they will come to the books via the movies & the games. I would argue that their whole experience will be lessened by that - they will get the pronunciation right, but only because they will never have had the freedom to get it 'wrong'. Increasingly we will achieve a uniform sound & vision of Middle-earth. More & more manifestations of M-e will actually result in a more precisely defined & limited experience - all in the name of 'authenticity'.

I think that more and more manifestations of M-E are actually the best way we can get out of this mess. We cannot return to the innocent halcyon days of Everybody Comes Up With His/Her Own Idea, but if there are enough people who are willing to present more manifestations that go against the visual flow but still fit in with the cues we're given in the books that might be enough for people to begin to realize that what they've been seeing is not what they're limited to. And this is the exact sort of effect that I try to achieve in fan fiction. Unfortunately I think the battle is lost on "right" or "wrong" pronunciations because we're given guidelines that were published during Tolkien's life. Although I know at least one person who read the books after the movies and still chose his own pronunciation that just barely fit into regular English phonetics.

I think you and I at least agree that Middle-earth will always exist somewhere between the text and the reader... we just differ on where the fuzzy borders of that zone stand.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

No, not of the story. But one could argue that one's experience of the world is different since the languages provide such a grounding.

Different, yes, but ....beyond that its a matter of opinion - the more onw changes in order to conform the more of one's individual participation in co-creation one sacrifices.

Similarly, does knowledge of the Silm enhance or detract a reader's experience of rereading LotR?

It obviously alters it - after reading the Silm LotR becomes a 'smaller' thing, just a tiny part of a bigger - but ultimaterly more delimited world. The more we find out about the history of M-e the less freedom we have to imagine thngs into that world. Its the unexplored vistas thing...

But once they got published Tolkien tried his best to treat them as they were as set in stone. So I think that the pronunciations do require a somewhat elevated status compared to the illustrations if you're selling your take on it--though not nearly as high as the facts presented in the text itself.

Except when he got the chance to change them (Riddles in the Dark in TH, the numerous smaller but occasionally significant changes in the 2nd ed of LotR). Tolkien wasn't averse to simply changing or even inventing things on the spot (cf Raynor Unwin's statement that when Pauline Baynes was having a problem with the poster map of LotR she had been commissioned to paint - too much empty space when the map was blown up to that size - Tolkien simply invented some features to fill in the gaps). Tolkien certainly felt freer to play with his creation than many geeks like to admit. Many things - as you've mentioned re the Appendices - don't quite 'fit', & fans seem to prefer to 'invent' complex explanations of their own in a desire for 'consistency' rather than simply acknowledge that Tolkien 'slipped up'.

And there are other visualizations that, if made available, would help counteract the monolithicness of the Jacksonian vision. I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.

I never saw the stage show, but I have the book & the album, & I have to say that it is often an improvement on the more 'conservative' approach taken by the movie makers.

Is this considered better or worse than this reader sticking with his/her original visualizations?

I wouldn't judge them either way - its what works for them. If they are more at home with their original pictures they should stick to them.

I think you and I at least agree that Middle-earth will always exist somewhere between the text and the reader... we just differ on where the fuzzy borders of that zone stand.

But it should be a co-creation. The reader should not feel 'forced' into surrendering ground in order to conform to some 'ideal' - if as a result they lose some of the magic which first attracted them into the secondary world..

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I was pleasantly stunned by the symbolic, minimalist imagery of the Stage Show, which proved to me that there really is a completely different way of looking at everything that can still be valid.

For those who haven't seen anything of the stage version - pics: http://www.lotr.com/sights_sounds/ch...hotographs.php & footage:http://www.lotr.com/sights_sounds/ As I said, I really liked the looked of the show (from the book, album & these clips). I wonder if they shot enough footage to put the whole thing out on DVD?