New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[dreeness]

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)


Nice list of charities, as smokescreens go anyway... "Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged."

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.

parasites who try to freeload and cash in on Tolkien's name and work

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by dreeness

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)

No need for Google.

hy·poc·ri·sy   [hi-pok-ruh-see]
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.

How is CT guilty of hypocrisy? He had nothing to do with the sale of the movie rights, and doesn't approve of the way PJ's movies were done. There's no pretense there. The movies were done despite his wishes, and he feels the Estate should at least reap some of the benefit, since they couldn't be stopped. Hypocrisy would be present if, say, CT had been actively courting companies for a film treatment, then gave interviews about how evil was the idea of LOTR movies.

Originally Posted by dreeness

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

I don't think Christopher has ever claimed any of his father's "reassembled" works to be a "masterpiece". He's been quite frank about the limitations of such works as Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion. Would you prefer that they had never seen the light of day? And if you don't like the job CT did, who would you have preferred as an editor?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

No-one is shooting anyone. Calling something a blank does not make it one.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.

No-one has denied this or does deny it. But part of this legal agreement was that Tolkien, and later his estate, was entitled to some of the profits. It looks like you are one who does not grasp the obvious.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

You support the legal right of the film-makers but deny the legal right of Christopher Tolkien? If you want to keep this on the level of legality alone, the law is the law. Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)

Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.

Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers? Call me names too if you wish. It won’t matter. Most people will see that it is only empty name-calling by someone who has no other argument.

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

No it wouldn’t.

Christopher Tolkien has the same legal right you go on about to write books about his father’s works as the film makers have to make their films. Christopher Tolkien’s books have sold unexpectedly well. I have not seen most of them pushed as a “lost masterpiece”. I have seen the films pushed as masterpieces.

Christopher Tolkien has a legal claim to a share of the profits of the films (if any). The claim of the film makers is that they have as yet made no money from the films. The courts disagreed.

If you believe that the courts were wrong, then explain how they were wrong. If your claim is on the legal level, then keep it on that level. Legally it would not matter if Christopher Tolkien were an axe-murderer and pederast and abominable writer. As executor of the Tolkien estate he has the right and duty to protect the estate. Similarly the film investors have the right and duty to protect their investment.

Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit. But one has nothing to do with the other. And sales of the books put out by Christopher Tolkien indicate, taken by themselves, that he is doing a good job.

The courts decided that the film investors were lying. That is not a blank. Under the legal agreement which J. R. R. Tolkien signed Christopher Tolkien is entitled to money according to the courts.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

You have offered nothing but bitter bits of personal opinion and misinformed invective, whereas Mith offered concrete information in her rebuttal; therefore, it is you who have brought a pop-gun to the intellectual duel.

Originally Posted by dreeness

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

Christopher Tolkien's research has proved invaluable to me in numerous projects. The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author. The published material in the History of Middle-earth series alone is an enriching resource that I treasure and find indispensible.

I don't know why you have such an axe to grind, but it seems to me you have seriously misjudged the intent of Christopher Tolkien as executor of his father's unpublished material, and you are utterly misguided regarding the scholarly value and reading enjoyment of Christopher Tolkien's publications. He has shown the utmost integrity and a love for his father's work that I find exemplary.

Your posts, on the other hand, leave much to be desired.

[Mithalwen]

Any facts in there? Sources for quotations?

On what basis do you feel you have the right to address Christopher Tolkien as "Ol'Chris"? say he is insignificant and abject?

Cheers Morth, jallanite and Inzil.. no need for me to reiterate your splendid comments.

[dreeness]

Would you prefer that they had never seen the light of day?

(Yes.)

Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

(Yep, worst thing I never said.)

Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit.

(Except maybe for that.)

Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers?

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

On what basis do you feel you have the right to address Christopher Tolkien as "Ol'Chris"? say he is insignificant and abject?

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)



(Still not at all clear about the "parasites" comment. Who are the alleged parasites? Peter Jackson? New Zealand? Honda?)

Cheers Morth, jallanite and Inzil.. no need for me to reiterate your splendid comments.

(Oh go on, give yourself a cheer too, you're astounding!)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)

Please, do not use the Constitution as a crutch for your ignorant drivel. It's embarrassing.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Yes.)

Don't read them.

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

No, I would not like to see what you've called anyone, just as much as I do not like to see what you've called CJRT.

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

You - once again - fail to see that CJRT is not made rich by the movies. He is getting very very very little of the money that the films make. It is not a question of profit. Let me give you an alternative analogy:

X says that Y can use some of his ideas. Y makes good money on the ideas. X comes to Y and says, "give me some credit for the idea!"

While hating how the "idea" was messed around with by the movies, games, and etc, what is wrong with demanding the due for giving the original spark - especially if by the contract that gave the movie rights part of the profit goes to the Tolkiens?

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)

Respect has nothing to do with any declarations or courts.

(Oh go on, give yourself a cheer too, you're astounding!)

If you would please wipe this attitude out when you talk to Mith who, unlike you, gave proper argumentation and evidence? If you don't like what she says, say what you don't like about it and why you don't like it. Don't put on all those airs and assume you are automatically right.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

Maybe you could just stop the vicious name-calling.

... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

That was a very poor analogy, considering what has already been posted here about charitable donations made by Christopher Tolkien on behalf of the Tolkien Estate.

Christopher Tolkien was already rich, made so by his father’s writing —which includes sale of film rights—and he has already donated large amounts. He has the same rights of freedom of speech as anyone else. It is the film producers who have been convicted of crying all the way to the bank claiming, “We still haven’t made any money!”, not Christopher Tolkien.

If Christopher Tolkien avoided criticizing the film companies, would that have been not hypocritical? It seems to me that not saying what you really think is also called hypocritical.

It is your hypocrisy that staggers me.

You continue to avoid the fact that the film companies lost legally and were forced to pay Christopher Tolkien. Having got at least some of the money to which he is legally entitled, he is also entitled to laugh all the way to the bank having beaten the film companies. No hypocrisy at all.

You apparently would prefer that Christopher Tolkien had done nothing and allowed the film companies to continue in their lies. But that too would be called hypocrisy. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

The word unprecedented is arguable, but only arguable. Even work by Mark Twain unpublished in his lifetime has not to that degree been entirely edited and commented on by one person.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Smiley emoticons do not replace sentient content, nor do they mask an apparent lack of courtesy. As a new member of the forum, I am wondering why you have decided to take an altogether contrarian attitude here.

If it is your intention to alienate yourself from the rest of us, then congratulations, you are well on your way to pariah status.

Originally Posted by dreeness

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

I am uninterested in what "seems unlikely" to you. We are not talking about your innate ability to divine an opinion. Your level of prescience is already in question.

If you have an actual example of such extraordinary documentation, research and editing of unpublished works of an author compiled by a single person, I'd like to hear it. Pepys? Boswell? I have quite an extensive library of literary criticism and research and I've seen nothing like it. If you have something valid to offer rather than snide and unsubstantiated contentions, then do so; if not, then there is no debate.

I would consider The Silmarillion, the 12 volumes of The History of Middle-earth, The Children of Hurin, and The Legend of Sigrid and Gudrun to be "unprecedented", but then again J.R.R. Tolkien himself was unprecedented in the depth and scope of his subcreation. And I am grateful to Christopher Tolkien for making this documentation available to the public.

[Mithalwen]

Still not at all clear about the "parasites" comment. Who are the alleged parasites? Peter Jackson? New Zealand? Honda?

Those who use things they have no legal entitlement to use them or welch on the contract to use them.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say" when there is a legitimately meaningful difference. I also wonder why--and this is perhaps in the original--much is made of Christopher Tolkien's "upper class" accent. Is that a point which is supposed to influence our understanding of his position?

It is very good to be reminded that the producers used that despicable line about 'not having shown profits yet' as a way to deny the Estate their legitimate profits. It provides a perspective on why the lawyers are being so assiduous about the rights of the Estate. As I recall, that line has also been used by the producers of Jimi Hendrick's music to deny his heirs any money from his estate. There's a culture of legal nitpicking and entitlement these days that amounts to greed and abuse by those in authority who feel empowered over those who may lack power. I'm glad the Estate won their case. Perhaps if The Scouring of the Shire had not been omitted from the films the producers might have understood the squalour of their position.

I often think of the history of medieval texts when I look at how Middle-earth has fed so many different imaginations. This interest is a tribute to Tolkien's desire to write a story that would interest him, and hopefully interest others. The text invites entry into the world; this could well be a quality that other authors have not pursued. But the effect is also an ironic consequence of something Tolkien himself noted in his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"

It ["Sir Gawain"] is one of the masterpieces of fourteenth-century art in England, and of English Literature as a whole. It is one of those greater works which not only bear the trampling of the Schools [Tolkien's capitalisation], endure becoming a text [again, T's italics], indeed (severest test) a set text, but yield more and more under this pressure. For it belongs to that literary kind which has deep roots in the past, deeper even than its author was aware. It is made of tales often told before and elsewhere, and of elements that derive from remote times . . . like Beowulf, or some of Shakespeare's plays, such as King Lear or Hamlet.

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, "Sir Gawain"

His story is not about those old things, but it receives part of its life, its vividness, its tension from them. That is the way with the greater fairy-stories--of which this is one.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

Like Christopher Tolkien, I don't particularly like the movies (although my dislike is milder than his). Yet at the same time I have to wonder if this explosion of versions of Middle-earth isn't in fact a literary phenomenon like the kind seen in medieval stories. It becomes a tribute to Tolkien's writing, both his scholarly and his fictive interests.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

[davem]

Couple of interesting things: first, this the first comment I've read from CT about the films. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the family had refused to make any comment at all about them. Second, its also fairly clear from his comment that he has seen the films - or at least the first one.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - if Jackson had gone for a straight action movie aimed at 15 - 25 year olds I think a great deal of the background material (most of the extra material in the extended editions) would have gone by the wayside (I think of Theodred's funeral & the heart-breaking scene between Elrond & Arwen in TT among other things). What Jackson certainly did was create a movie that would prove attractive to 15 -25 year olds as well as older people. There is too much stuff in the movies which wouldn't be there if Jackson had merely done what CT accuses him of.

That said, there are some frankly dumb things in the movies that he ought to be slapped for.

My own dissatisfaction at the movies is simply that they don't 'feel' like Lord of the Rings - something is missing - its in the BBC radio series, which CT played a part in bringing into being, sending tapes of correct pronunciations to the adaptors & corresponding with them - not to mention allowing them to incorporate material from Unfinished Tales into the series. I don't know why the radio version captures the mood & spirit of the book & the movies don't. That said, & if CT thinks PJ has 'trivialised' his father's work, let's imagine what Michael Bey or James Cameron might have gifted us with ...

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT - and certainly not his father given his comments in OFS. Still, Tolkien sold the film rights & made PJ's movie possible. It could certainly be argued that if CT feels as he does he should direct at least some of his anger at his father for selling his pearl of great price in the first place. The book is still there for those who want to read it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That some tales occur in oral tradition in many variants indicates unusual popularity of those particular tales. But even those tales can often be traced to a particular variant created at a particular time, before which the recognized tale does not exist.

Tales that have reached Tolkien’s level of popularity are few. Some are semi-religious epics: The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Mahābhārata, and The Ramayana. Some are fantasy compilations that are mostly inventions of a single author, for example the Orlando Furioso of Ludovico Ariosto.

But Ariosto never found a great English translator and his work is almost unknown in the English-language world today. Tolkien said he had never read it and would have hated it if he had. The most popular English-language work in the 19th century was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s virulently anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book almost unread today.

Stories become extraordinarily popular and then disappear almost entirely. Most medieval tales are not very popular today, read only in translation by people who are particularly interested in the matter of the works or their influence on other works. Literary critics really can’t explain this.

Ballantine Books attempted to cash in on Tolkien by publishing a library of fantasy classics. They sold only reasonably well at the time and are now again mostly long out-of-print in popular editions. One comes again and again upon the belief that Tolkien was the unique founder of the fantasy genre, an indication of the degree to which the many, many earlier fantasy works are unknown to many.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, despite its popularity, was better known to the masses from numerous dramatic adaptations. The story of Hamlet and King Lear are almost only known from Shakespeare’s adaptations, not from the earlier non-tragic medieval accounts. In the earlier years of the 20th century Ariosto was better known in Italy in puppet-theater adaptations.

My questions about the number of versions of fairy tales were rhetorical. I meant merely to suggest a similarity between the many versions of fairy tales and the many versions of Middle-earth we now have.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say"

The original calls him professeur. Which can be anything from a Secondary school teacher up but there is often a modifier... Maitre de conference might be the most accurate equivalent it is a long time since I worked in a French University as a "Lecteur" (which is a foreign language assistant rather than the lofty heights of Reader in an UK university) and I can't quite remember the fine details but IIRC French University lecturers are civil servants and tend to have to sit competitive exams to get their posts. So with different systems it is hard to give an exact equivalent. Given how much wider the meaning of professeur is in French compared to professor in English, and that it is factual rather than literary I might have elided the issue by saying he taught Old English... not ideal ,,is lecturer really not understood the other side of the pond?

As for the accent... the original is "Un Anglais distingué, doté d'un accent très upper class" I don't know that is making much of it, Doté is a bit stronger than with. It literally has the sense of endowed with. From the Silmarillion recordings, Christopher does have a very upper class accent.... though not suprising for someone of his age and schooling, especially an expat. If you use a different language for a lot of day to day life it can keep your native language in a time warp. It seems a pretty good translation really though I have been using French more recently it isn't back to what it was by a long chalk.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

is lecturer really not understood the other side of the pond?

Not here in North North America!

As for the accent... the original is "Un Anglais distingué, doté d'un accent très upper class" I don't know that is making much of it, Doté is a bit stronger than with. It literally has the sense of endowed with. From the Silmarillion recordings, Christopher does have a very upper class accent.... though not suprising for someone of his age and schooling, especially an expat. If you use a different language for a lot of day to day life it can keep your native language in a time warp.

Given that there's no class lines in any of our few regional accents here, accents are not a significant issue here. I had to wonder what was so very relevant about CT's accent--just a bit of character expose or was the interviewer trying to suggest some kind of elitism or snobbishness on CT's part? Not quite the same as "upper class twit" but a bit of shading of the man.

It seems a pretty good translation really though I have been using French more recently it isn't back to what it was by a long chalk.

Thanks! I'm sure your French is still much better than mine, which gets some of the rust rubbed off on the ocasional (and rare) trips to Montreal.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

Not the best analogy really. I'm a civil servant and a leftie and our Government is a bunch of neo-cons. I'm not about to give up my job though, as I need to feed the family - and more pertinently to this issue, we are not expected to support the Government, we are impartial in our working life and free in our personal opinions. Just as Christopher Tolkien may well have to manage cheques earnt from selling Lego Frodos and Arwen Tea Towels (I'd like one of these, wonder where I can get one???) as part of his job, yet with a peg on his nose. Not everyone can afford the luxury of self righteousness over things like that. Such is life.

And no, I don't worship at the altar of Christopher Tolkien, nor the Estate who have done some quite odious things (giving to charidee doesn't give you an exemption clause from being decent to small businesses etc). He has also got himself a job for life and I have concerns about 'sole gatekeepers' to literary estates after the debacle over the control Ted Hughes's sister had over the Plath literary estate. But you have to be realistic, he's human! And the Estate was entitled to that cash.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I took it, as you suggest, in the sense of "dead academic of medieval things" vs. "living, less-educated children of the 30-second soundbite and Hollywood glitz", and in that respect I didn't read it as a post-modern idea at all. Within the context of the article, it seemed less to me to suggest that people today can't get the message; rather that they probably won't--not because it is inaccessible but because they are habituated to receiving things in the Hollywood mode--and Jackson has now given them the Hollywood mode.

I often think that with writers such as Tolkien who produced very vivid, readable epics, the received wisdom that a 'Hollywood' treatment can alter things doesn't always hold true. Even after those blockbusting films which introduced characters such as Gollum and Gandalf to the mainstream mindset (how many people do you know who use 'Hobbits' as a general term for anyone short?) those images have not been set in stone. Looking at fan art works you can see this - people still ahve their own vision.

That, I think, is because the writing, and in particular, the visual message implied in the langauge, is so strong. It's shared with George RR Martin too. JK Rowling, as much as I love her to pieces, doesn't share this, sadly. Or perhaps it is down to maturity of audience?

It could be an interesting discussion, to root out whether the films really have altered our mental Middle-earth landscape, and to what extent...

I do sneakily like the idea that it's all out of Tolkien's hands though, as that's where actual mythology begins.