New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[Legolas]

Thanks to those keeping it civil, and those reminders of proper forum conduct.

You may wish to review a couple of our policies and guidelines.

Accept the fact that others have different opinions. If you don’t agree, just state your own opinion; you don’t have to correct everyone else or argue until they agree with you.

Violators will be entombed.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

Sometimes I suspect he's the oldest Hipster in town - "Tolkien films are so over."

But, he probably didn't think they would make good films even before they were made, either because (like a lot of us) he didn't realise just what modern SFX are capable of or he had an extremely fixed and strong vision in his own mind. Likely the latter. And thirteen years later, he is probably negatively affected by all of the hype surrounding them and the court case.

Anyone going through a court case like that is bound to hate those films, it's not a case of someone saying they hate them but secretly quite enjoying them. CT hates them, full stop. However, given all the hype and marketing, even if there had been no court case I think he would still hate the films.

Some of the hype I dislike, but overall, I think it's unfair to blame Alan Lee and John Howe for the visual images they created. It's as beautiful and thoughtful a vision that could have been created, seeing as they chose the two very best Tolkien visual artists to lead it, and they are two artists who took immense care over what they made. Blame Jackson for some bad script choices, yes, but not the artists.

I come back again to what the journalist said, and I think he/she is likely unaware of the work of these two men and the respect they did and still do show to Tolkien's work as fans themselves. It's really not fair to blame them if marketeers used their imagery afterwards for some of the cheesier products - better this than something lurid by the Hildebrant Brothers

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.

[Mithalwen]

It is odd because on the whole it is probably the aspect of the film he minds least. Alan Lee was requested to do the illustrations for the Children of Hurin which was a matter in which CRT presumably had a lot of clout. Noone can know exactly how Tolkien saw his world and he himself was the first to admit that he had not the skill to realise his vision in paint (though the more I read, the more I realise how skilled he was at doing it with words) but it seems that Alan Lee is, at least, the "least worst option" as far as CRT is concerned.

I am no great fan of the films and have never managed to sit through the second two in their entirety since seeing them in the cinema but I did enjoy the prop and costume exhibitions and got the feeling that those who designed and created them really cared about the source material. Where they fell down for me was that characterisation was always sacrificed to endless action scenes and cheap gags. But then I am not the desired demographic.

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

For me one ot the strengths of the Radio version - and indeed the wonderful Bernard Cribbins Jackanory reading that was my introduction to Middle Earth, was that it left more scope for the listener to engage with the work firing one's own imagination rather than dictating. Of course they are a lot more faithful to the original.

[Lalwendë]

I think the opinion on Lee and Howe is that of the journalist, who is a dreadful writer. The article is all background pre-amble and the journo's feelings about the topic, with very scanty input from CT. I would guess he spoke for longer than two minutes so where is the rest of it?

Anyway, here we are, I've found the page where Alan Lee expresses beautifully his feelings about illustrating Middle-earth:

In 1988, Alan was approached by J. R. R. Tolkien's publisher to create fifty new paintings for a lavish new edition of The Lord of the Rings, celebrating the first centenary of Tolkien's birth. This work took the artist two years to create and was published in 1991 — a stunning achievement which beautifully captures the unique magic of Tolkien's world. (More recently, he completed illustrations for The Hobbit, published earlier this year.)

Speaking about this massive undertaking, Alan says: "I first read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit when I was eighteen. It felt as though the author had taken every element I'd ever want in a story and woven them into one huge, seamless narrative; but more important, for me, Tolkien had created a place, a vast, beautiful, awesome landscape, which remained a resource long after the protagonists had finished their battles and gone their separate ways. In illustrating The Lord of the Rings I allowed the landscapes to predominate. In some of the scenes the characters are so small they are barely discernible. This suited my own inclinations and my wish to avoid, as much as possible, interfering with the pictures being built up in the reader's mind, which tends to be more closely focussed on characters and their inter-relationships. I felt my task lay in shadowing the heroes on their epic quest, often at a distance, closing in on them at times of heightened emotion but avoiding trying to re-create the dramatic highpoints of the text.

With The Hobbit, however, it didn't seem appropriate to keep such a distance, particularly from the hero himself. I don't think I've ever seen a drawing of a Hobbit which quite convinced me, and I don't know whether I've gotten any closer myself with my depictions of Bilbo. I'm fairly happy with the picture of him standing outside Bag End, before Gandalf arrives and turns his world upside-down, but I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons Hobbits are so quiet and elusive is to avoid the prying eyes of illustrators."

{dn: my paras there, to make it easier to read}

Linky to the Endicott Studio which he is part of, a loose group also included Neil Gaiman, Brian Froud and Charles Vess. One of the rare websites which can be called a thing of beauty.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

The question of other visions than PJ's moves me to wonder what CT thought of the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi animated movies.

Personally, even though they are hardly high works of art, nor are they slavishly faithful to the books (to say the least ), I've got a soft spot in my heart for them, and do not harbor the same dislike I have for the live action treatments. I don't know if it's due to the fact that I saw them as a child and never took them seriously to begin with, or if it's more the lingering frustration that PJ got just enough right that his errors were simply that much more magnified and hard to forgive.

Did CT ever give an opinion of the earlier attempts?

[Mithalwen]

It always amuses me that they seem to favour the leather and bare leges Conan the Barbarian type look. Goodness knows what was going on in their psyches but it does seem rather impractical for nothern climes in winter. I know neither Boromir or Aragorn had mothers around for long to tell them they'd catch their death but really.. I suppose I should be grateful at least that Jackson's vision included trousers.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by CT

"My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form. On the other hand, I recognise that this is a debatable and complex question of art"

It is, I think also debatable, whether he or the prof himself would have thought about this differently had they not being tied into their view of the "visual dramatic form" as a theatre piece or a movie that can only last for a certain amount of time, like three to four hours maximum?

What would have Tolkien thought about an HBO/GoT kind of a settlement with something like six seasons fex. (one season to every book) aka. 60 hours of top class drama? Would that kind of possibility, if presented to them, have changed their minds from the LotR being "in principle" unsuited to transform into a visual dramatic form?

[Mithalwen]

If more time meant more fildelity and development I imagine it would be preferable but I don't know whether it would solve the issues say related to depicting the various races of Middle Earth. Not being familiar with GoT I can't say whether they have similar issues to solve.

Elves are the killer really.... meant to be so beautiful, so elegant, graceful, old yet young. Cate Blanchett pulled it off but she has the advantage of being arguably the best actress of her generation as well as having the right physicality. Not many can do it and even though there aren't so many elves in LOTR as would be needed say for any filming of the Silmarillion. But they just get tall skinny slghtly odd looking humans.... doesn't quite work. Not for me anyhow.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour.

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

[davem]

An interesting documentary coming up on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 4th August The Hobbit, the Musical http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ld15z

Actor Billy Boyd, who played a hobbit in the films of The Lord Of The Rings, narrates the story of the first ever stage production of J.R.R.Tolkien's The Hobbit, at New College School in Oxford in 1967. It was written by Humphrey Carpenter, with music by composer, Paul Drayton, then music teacher at the school. We hear from the boys who performed it, who were choristers at the time and who are now eminent in the musical world: Choral conductor Simon Halsey, Martin Pickard Head of Music at Opera North, artist's agent Stephen Lumsden and composer Howard Goodall- who watched his older brother Ashley, now a marketing professional, perform. They talk about their memories and about Tolkien's presence in the audience on the last night.
The present-day Chamber choir at New College School sing some of the original songs, and we also play a never before broadcast recording of the production as it happened in 1967.

Yep - a High School musical of The Hobbit, written by Tolkien's biographer, which Tolkien attended. Carpenter spoke about it in a talk he gave after Tolkien's death. Carpenter went to discuss the project with Tolkien. While Tolkien apparently wasn't very enthusiastic about the idea, according to Carpenter he did suggest ideas for music for some of the songs & attended. Carpenter stated that Tolkien smiled when his original words were used but winced at any changes.

This other Radio 4 doc also looks fascinating Tolkien in Love http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l8qr2

Novelist Helen Cross, who herself lives in Birmingham, uncovers the story of the young J.R.R. Tolkien, falling in love with Edith Bratt. The love story of Beren and Luthien at the heart of his novel The Silmarillion was inspired by their relationship. They were both orphans, living in a boarding house in Edgbaston, Birmingham. The teenagers would talk out of their respective bedroom windows until dawn, and go for cycle rides to the Lickey Hills. However, when their romance was discovered, Tolkien's guardian, Father Francis Morgan, forbade Tolkien to see Edith until he came of age.Tolkien won an Exhibition to Oxford and Edith went to live in Cheltenham. But at midnight, as he turned 21, Tolkien wrote to Edith saying his feelings were unchanged. Unfortunately, in the intervening years, Edith had got engaged to someone else. Tolkien got on a train and she met him at Cheltenham station. They walked out to the nearby countryside and Tolkien persuaded her to break off her engagement and marry him instead. But the First World War was about to intervene, and Tolkien volunteered and was sent to the Somme.

Helen Cross visits key locations in Birmingham, Cheltenham and Oxford, to tell the story of Tolkien's young life and the love story at the heart of it.
Readings by David Warner as Tolkien and Ed Sear as the young Tolkien.

Both should be available via i player (radio programmes are usually available worldwide http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/b..._four/20120714 )

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour.

Going by the descriptions, I'm suspicious it's near where my old mucker's brother mistakenly bought an old house - well off the beaten track, wild boar everywhere which drove their dog insane to the point where she disappeared into the woods and went feral. It was all a failure because they realised Lancashire is much nicer

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

Do you think you can pick out the Nasmith bits? I want to know now so I can go back and see if those scenes do look different. Because he has a completely different style to Lee, much more lurid - it works in his landscapes which are fabulous but I've never really got on with his figurative work because it moves towards the D&D style there.

[Mithalwen]

Don't suppose that Christopher Tolkien would have retired to Lancashire. He is a Yorkshireman by birth after all.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Oh come on, you just don't like CJRT.

Originally Posted by davem

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT

I agree. But then I would not put CJRT alone like that - I think many people would not be happy with any movie. I know I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I wonder has he ever realised that the books are packed with action?

They certainly are, but they are not action-based books. I mean, if you have a book without action you're probably holding a botanical encyclopedia. Yet the books (LOTR at least) do not emphasize the action, and it happens slowly, and allows other things to happen too. You don't have 20 pages of descriptions of how Aragorn chops orcs in half, three at a time, at a rate of 60 orcs/minute. But you can't expect to sell a movie to 15-25 y/o's nowadays without it being like that - which brings me back to the beginning of this endless cycle.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What about this controversial statement?

I don't know. I'd feel guilty too if it was my father's work that I altered.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What would have Tolkien thought about an HBO/GoT kind of a settlement with something like six seasons fex. (one season to every book) aka. 60 hours of top class drama? Would that kind of possibility, if presented to them, have changed their minds from the LotR being "in principle" unsuited to transform into a visual dramatic form?

I think that it would not work this way either. I have not seen GOT, but I'd imagine it works well, because there is so much detail on everyday details, if you know what I mean. Like, in LOTR, you'd hardly expect to read about a trip to the privy because of an indigestion from last night's feast. And there is less detail in general - whereas GOT would describe a fight with all the moves and details and gore, LOTR would read "they fought and X won". The scope of LOTR makes it difficult to fit into x amount of hours, but its lack of details in the writing style makes it difficult to make a series without making it profane and ruined.

So I think that LOTR is, indeed, "on principle unsuited to transform into a visual form" as a whole. Parts have been done well in the movies, and there are many beautiful drawings, but I think you just can't reenact it from cover to cover and get it right. It's just like that. For lack of a better description - on principle.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

They certainly are, but they are not action-based books. I mean, if you have a book without action you're probably holding a botanical encyclopedia. Yet the books (LOTR at least) do not emphasize the action, and it happens slowly, and allows other things to happen too. You don't have 20 pages of descriptions of how Aragorn chops orcs in half, three at a time, at a rate of 60 orcs/minute. But you can't expect to sell a movie to 15-25 y/o's nowadays without it being like that - which brings me back to the beginning of this endless cycle.

Of course it doesn't focus on the violence of battle. I think you might need to read some of the Conan books for that kind of thing, and even then it's not half so violent. If I wanted to read about violence, I wouldn't turn to fiction of any kind, but to history books and the daily news.

But Lord of the Rings is a Quest, and that's inherently an action based story. Constantly moving on. And without the action of challenges along the way, it would be incredibly boring. This is where I think it's a very tricksy book, because the feel of it is pure magic, and we don't always notice that driving narrative. And it's also part of the reason everyone can re-read then so often. Once you know the narrative and have gone on that adventure, next time around you can spend more time looking at the flowers Tolkien describes and drinking in the atmosphere.

To be fair, I think the films did capture the same sense of movement and the same quotient of action as shown in the books. The sweeping panorama shots of the Fellowship moving through the hills are the filmic equivalent of Tolkien spending a few pages on exposition, describing a changing landscape.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But Lord of the Rings is a Quest, and that's inherently an action based story. Constantly moving on. And without the action of challenges along the way, it would be incredibly boring.

Aye. But.

LOTR was not a kind of story that I read because I was anxious about what happens next. If I want some of that, I'll reread my GoT. The action happens more subtly, peacefully, gently. You're interested about what happens next, but it doesn't have the kind of read-non-stop grip that some other books do. Instead, what gripped me was what is there besides the plot.

Once again, even books without plot still have some kind of plot, unless they are math textbooks or something like that (though even in those you may find many a plot point.... ok, bad pun on analytic geometry). All novels have some kind of plot. But in LOTR, despite its being a Quest, the plot is not what makes it remarquable.

Originally Posted by Lal

To be fair, I think the films did capture the same sense of movement and the same quotient of action as shown in the books. The sweeping panorama shots of the Fellowship moving through the hills are the filmic equivalent of Tolkien spending a few pages on exposition, describing a changing landscape.

That's true. I enjoyed those scenes the most, probably, with only a few exceptions. They have the right feel in them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Do you think you can pick out the Nasmith bits? I want to know now so I can go back and see if those scenes do look different. Because he has a completely different style to Lee, much more lurid - it works in his landscapes which are fabulous but I've never really got on with his figurative work because it moves towards the D&D style there.

It's the landscapes mainly. Check out Nasmith's "At the Falls" and his depictions of Minas Tirith, maybe the cliffs of Rivendell (not the buildings). That's what I can recall; it's been quite awhile since I watched the movies.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

LOTR was not a kind of story that I read because I was anxious about what happens next. If I want some of that, I'll reread my GoT. The action happens more subtly, peacefully, gently. You're interested about what happens next, but it doesn't have the kind of read-non-stop grip that some other books do. Instead, what gripped me was what is there besides the plot.

It gripped me! But it did take me a long time to read, as I started by pinching my brother's books and I had to sneak them out. I took them to school with me and would wait for break time and go and find a hidey hole where I could read them in peace - usually in an old cloakroom that was piled high with old chairs. I'd crawl underneath them and sit amongst a century's worth of spiders and dust, reading. I savoured them (the books, not the spiders), but I was thoroughly gripped.

And yes, it was more than the plot, but the plot did drive it all. I remember first reading about Arwen and thinking "Why is she looking at Strider like that?" and not being satisfied until the end as to why. And feeling really upset when Gandalf fell in Moria.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It's the landscapes mainly. Check out Nasmith's "At the Falls" and his depictions of Minas Tirith, maybe the cliffs of Rivendell (not the buildings). That's what I can recall; it's been quite awhile since I watched the movies.

I've just had a look and I see what you mean! Check out "The Tower of the Moon" too - the colouring is not the same as in the films but the shape of the valley and tower is the same.

I quite like his Ents, actually. They are like giant, 'twiggy' men, rather than trees with eyes, which is good.

[Mithalwen]

Looking for something else, I found this on the Estate Website regarding the illustration of the Children of Hurin:

"We have always admired the work of Alan Lee, ever since he was commissioned to illustrate The Lord of the Rings at the time of J.R.R. Tolkien's centenary. While preparing the story for publication, Christopher decided that to have the book illustrated from first publication would also underline its essential quality as a story rather than a scholarly work."

For Christopher to have actively wanted Lee's illustration is quite a mark of approval. And the Estate website is surely a fairly reliable source....

[Mumriken]

Lee's work is in a class of it's own. I doubt I would be able to vizualise lord of the rings etc without his artwork. It's so rich and adds to the whole middle earth atmosphere. Here are some of his hobbit artwork, I wonder if the movies have taken inspiration from his work.

http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epop..._porte_lee.jpg
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epop..._troll_lee.jpg
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epop..._smaug_lee.jpg
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epop...arrock_lee.jpg

[Mithalwen]

I like Lee's work - certainly better than just about anyone's save Tolkien's own and Pauline Bayne's which is a different style - but I don't need them. I find the word pictures quite vivid.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Looking for something else, I found this on the Estate Website regarding the illustration of the Children of Hurin:

"We have always admired the work of Alan Lee, ever since he was commissioned to illustrate The Lord of the Rings at the time of J.R.R. Tolkien's centenary. While preparing the story for publication, Christopher decided that to have the book illustrated from first publication would also underline its essential quality as a story rather than a scholarly work."

For Christopher to have actively wanted Lee's illustration is quite a mark of approval. And the Estate website is surely a fairly reliable source....

That's good, because it confirms it's the journalist projecting some assumptions rather than CT's own feelings on the matter. One of the things that surely nobody could criticise about the films was the care put into the artwork by Alan Lee and John Howe - their Oscar was truly well deserved.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's also worth noting that the Estate *requested* that Alan Lee do Children of Hurin *after* the films- so the notion of petty resentment or blackballing is shown to be another myth.

Note on "upper-class" accents: JRRT himself would be the first to point out that the "Oxford accent" is of very middle-class origin. (To hear a bona fide upper-class accent, listen to some 50s-era recordings of the Queen speaking).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Since you said this, of course, we've been fortunate enough to see Verlyn Flieger's talk at Return of the Ring, which calls into question that very aspect of Tolkien Senior's personality. I've been meaning ever since to start a thread to discuss my thoughts on that issue, but for now just a quick thought.

I haven't consulted my library yet, but it seems to me that the only aspects of French culture to which JRRT expressed any antipathy were specifically those which have been imposed on the English, either by the Normans (Woden's curse be upon them) or the aptly French-named bourgeoisie (in other words, precisely those people represented by the Sackville-Bagginses). It's easy to see how a product of industrial, no-nonsense Birmingham society might well heap a certain amount of disdain on the gratuitous and unnecessary use of French where a perfectly adequate English term exists, or the unjustifiable privilege given to French culture among the would-be arbiters of taste in this country. It's possible that Humphrey Carpenter overstated the case a little or misinterpreted what he discovered. In any case, I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

I don't believe CT ever flew Spits. He did his primary training in Tiger Moths and his advanced training in Harvards, then transferred to the RN- I don't know what he flew in the FAA or whether he reached an operational squadron before demob, but I know he never qualled or flew off carriers, which rules out Seafires.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Being a bit of a plane buff, that information interests me a lot. It's a standard progression for mid-1940s pilot training, but interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I wasn't suggesting that CRT flew Spitfires; I was just selecting the type that's my personal point of departure from JRRT's comments in Letters #100. I had no knowledge of CRT's military service beyond the very basics until I read your post just now.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I don't believe CT ever flew Spits. He did his primary training in Tiger Moths and his advanced training in Harvards, then transferred to the RN- I don't know what he flew in the FAA or whether he reached an operational squadron before demob, but I know he never qualled or flew off carriers, which rules out Seafires.

Hurricanes might be a good possibility as well.
I know this is a bit far afield of this thread, but WWII aviation is an interest of mine too.

I always wondered if combat aviation might not have been in the back of JRRT's mind when he wrote of battles between Eagles and Dragons, and aerial elements strafing the ground, like Smaug did to Lake-town.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

CT began his training at No. 7 Air School (Tiger Moths), Kroonstad, Free State; after completing Elementary Flying Training there he moved on to No. 25 AS (Harvards) at Standerton, Transvaal for Service Flying Training.

Upon graduation and commissioning in March 1945 he was sent back to England, and subsequently was transferred to the FAA; I don't know why but if I had to guess it would be because with the surrender of Germany there was a perceived greater need for RN pilots vs. Japan. By this time in the war the RN was operating few British-built aircraft; aside from the Barracuda and a small number of Seafires most of its TOE was made up of USN types (Martlet/Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger etc).

[leapofberen]

I thank God for Christopher Tolkien. Here is a man who has spent the rest of his life finishing his father's work...how rare is that in this day and age? And if he had not spent years being about his father's work, I would not have enjoyed or benefited from those works, especially The Silmarillion. He is an honorable man, and it warms my soul to know that there are folk like him out there.

I do not find it surprising that Christopher and the Tolkien Estate are opposed to the commercialization and circus surrounding the Jackson movies. I would expect that after having read the Professor's writings and letters. Not surprising at all!

I do not think it is fair or right to throw Christopher under the bus for asking for a cut of the profits that came from the adaptations of his father's work; I would. JRRT was his FATHER after all. If it pains him as much as we have heard to see his father's work handled in such a way, then this would be some small redemption. More importantly, I do not believe it was about the money for Christopher (his history should prove that!) but rather about honoring his father in some way. In fact, it would be better if the people handling the adaptations, the movie studios, etc, would have chosen to honor the Tolkien estate by giving them their cut in the first place.

It only goes to show, no matter how much one loves or hates the movies, that the folks who were behind making them (I am not speaking of Jackson here) are only in it as deep as the money goes. I know that even Peter Jackson struggled to create the adaptations that he did! I understand the way Christopher feels. I also understand that it all could have been much worse if someone other than Jackson had made the adaptations...much worse.

Well, much of this is tragic, and I too am somewhat grieved to think that Tolkien's work could be so readily exposed to dilution or depravity if it were not for his children and his estate. Thank God for Christopher Tolkien and his work, his perseverance and the preservation of his father's legacy; and much more then that: rather, the preservation and telling of stories of which JRR Tolkien says, "I always had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere..."

May we all learn to get caught up in the Larger Story. Thank you JRRT and CJRT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

I thank God for Christopher Tolkien. Here is a man who has spent the rest of his life finishing his father's work...how rare is that in this day and age? And if he had not spent years being about his father's work, I would not have enjoyed or benefited from those works, especially The Silmarillion. He is an honorable man, and it warms my soul to know that there are folk like him out there.

I do not find it surprising that Christopher and the Tolkien Estate are opposed to the commercialization and circus surrounding the Jackson movies. I would expect that after having read the Professor's writings and letters. Not surprising at all!

I do not think it is fair or right to throw Christopher under the bus for asking for a cut of the profits that came from the adaptations of his father's work; I would. JRRT was his FATHER after all. If it pains him as much as we have heard to see his father's work handled in such a way, then this would be some small redemption. More importantly, I do not believe it was about the money for Christopher (his history should prove that!) but rather about honoring his father in some way. In fact, it would be better if the people handling the adaptations, the movie studios, etc, would have chosen to honor the Tolkien estate by giving them their cut in the first place.

It only goes to show, no matter how much one loves or hates the movies, that the folks who were behind making them (I am not speaking of Jackson here) are only in it as deep as the money goes. I know that even Peter Jackson struggled to create the adaptations that he did! I understand the way Christopher feels. I also understand that it all could have been much worse if someone other than Jackson had made the adaptations...much worse.

Well, much of this is tragic, and I too am somewhat grieved to think that Tolkien's work could be so readily exposed to dilution or depravity if it were not for his children and his estate. Thank God for Christopher Tolkien and his work, his perseverance and the preservation of his father's legacy; and much more then that: rather, the preservation and telling of stories of which JRR Tolkien says, "I always had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere..."

May we all learn to get caught up in the Larger Story. Thank you JRRT and CJRT.

I think CT is in something of the position as the son of a great and legendary chef, who has lived to see his father's name slapped on a chain of wildly successful burger joints.... and is then foully pilloried for not endorsing fast food.


(CT incidentally is a *very* nice man, and has a hysterically funny dry wit. He is no hermit, and is fact quite social, but doesn't like crowds or publicity.)

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I like Lee's work - certainly better than just about anyone's save Tolkien's own and Pauline Bayne's which is a different style - but I don't need them. I find the word pictures quite vivid.

I, myself, watched the PJ version of Tolkien before reading the books. At the time I was perfectly satisfied with his interpretation -- I do not feel the same way anymore. I like Alan Lee's artwork. I also like John Howe's. I own four ME maps that were painted by John Howe and they are quite beautiful. Despite this, I find the longer it has been since I watched the films, the more I have a different visual of ME than was shown, and surprisingly, I like mine better. PJ was able to get people on his team that were talented in making the visual ME, but he botched it in the character and scripting department.

Christopher Tolkien has a right to be disappointed. He was there when his father was writing, after all. He probably knows better than anyone else alive what J.R.R.'s vision was for his works. Without Christopher Tolkien, we would know hardly anything about Middle-earth and its history.

[davem]

This is a brief excerpt from a recording made at Church House Bookshop back in 1981, launching the BBC Radio adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Its a short piece, where Brian Sibley goes into the contribution Christopher made to the series, & references the tape recording CT made as a pronunciation guide for the actors.

About 5 seconds of silence before the audio starts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spIP...ature=youtu.be

[jallanite]

This tape is welcome here, at least to me.

Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation of Thengel (using International Phonetic Alphabet symbols) as Then[dʒ]el where his father pronounced it as The[ŋɡ]el stands out as an odd differing pronunciation. It is probably not an error by either of the Tolkiens but would indicate different theories of how the Old English name may have been pronounced, and possibly theories of how the name was pronounced in different dialects of Old English.

Old English grammars, at least those that I have seen, get vague in their rules for words which contain ng. See http://www.lotrplaza.com/archive7/fo...asp?TID=234771 for a discussion which in its later sections, towards the top, gets into Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation. Another possible pronunciation is The[nj]el. It is noted in the forum I have linked to that Tolkien preferred to pronounce the name Hengest as something like Hen[dʒ]est or Hen[j]est where other systems of Old English pronunciation prefer He[ŋɡ]est.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The problem there is that in attempting to reconstruct ancient pronunciations, we rarely have much to go on besides what we can deduce from the sound-patterning of the language's surviving verse, whether rhyme, assonance, or alliteration; and that doesn't help much with medial consonants and consonant-pairs.

Occasionally orthography helps, as a sound-shift can be traced in a spelling change over time and/or colloquial spellings; but that's no help with -ng since there wouldn't have been an alternate orthography, "J" not existing in OE (except as an alternate written form of the vowel "I")

So -ng is really anybody's guess, depending on whether one wants to use "frog DNA" from mod. German, or from Dutch-Frisian which is a closer cousin. FWIW, I'm disposed to think that dzh- in English, spelled either J or G, is a French import. But I certainly have no evidence to back up my gut there.

[jallanite]

That J did not exist in Old English is irrelevant. My only use of the letter is as the International Phonetic Alphabet character [j] which is sounded like consonantal Y in modern English.

But -ng- is in at least some Old English words pronounced as [ŋ] as in Latin. Some such words are longe (‘long’), cyning (‘king’), song (‘song’) with ng pronounced [ŋ]. But singe (‘I sing′) is considered to have been pronounced as sin[dʒ]e and engel (‘angel’) is pronounced as en[dʒ]el, similar to modern angel.

For many words which exist in Middle English and Modern English the post-Old English forms are a great help.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides. See, for example, http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resour...unciation.html , where it is stated:

Dotted ġ is usually pronounced [j], as in Modern English yes, but when it follows an n it is pronounced [ʤ], as in Modern English angel.

Dotted ġ only appears in some modernizations of Old English text to distinguish soft g from hard g. The International Phonetic Alphabet symbol [ʤ] was a former variant covering the two symbols [dʒ] but is now obsolete in official IPA usage. In current procedure one might use [d͡ʒ] if one wants to indicate specifically that [dʒ] represents a single phoneme.

Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation is indeed one possible pronunciation of the name Thengel following modern theories reconstructing Old English. It is not a French import. I do not know the bases for this decision.

[Mithalwen]

Doesn't Christopher explain his choice? It is a bit indistinct but I have heard this before and I thought he did.. but not having done much (ie virtually no) AS it didn't sink in.

I don't suppose it is at all relevant that west midlands accents now tend to sound ng closer to separate consonants than the IPA hooked n sound - sin-ging

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That J did not exist in Old English is irrelevant. My only use of the letter is as the International Phonetic Alphabet character [j] which is sounded like consonantal Y in modern English.

But -ng- is in at least some Old English words pronounced as [ŋ] as in Latin. Some such words are longe (‘long’), cyning (‘king’), song (‘song’) with ng pronounced [ŋ]. But singe (‘I sing′) is considered to have been pronounced as sin[dʒ]an and engel (‘angel’) is pronounced as en[dʒ]el, similar to modern angel.

For many words which exist in Middle English and Modern English the post-Old English forms are a great help.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides. See, for example, http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resour...unciation.html , where it is stated:

Dotted ġ is usually pronounced [j], as in Modern English yes, but when it follows an n it is pronounced [ʤ], as in Modern English angel.

Dotted ġ only appears in some modernizations of Old English text to distinguish soft g from hard g. The International Phonetic Alphabet symbol [ʤ] was a former variant covering the two symbols [dʒ] but is now obsolete in official IPA usage. In current procedure one might use [d͡ʒ] if one wants to indicate specifically that [dʒ] represents a single phoneme.

Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation is indeed one possible pronunciation of the name Thengel following modern theories reconstructing Old English. It is not a French import. I do not know the bases for this decision.

You're rather missing the point. The absence of J in A-S is relevant to the extent that there was no alternate orthography for G which might shed light on the issue, unlike, say ME G-W.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides.. By many, yes, but not all: that's the point- we really don't know and it's a matter of deduction. (Dotted G of course is a modern convention, not found in the sources)

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Doesn't Christopher explain his choice? It is a bit indistinct but I have heard this before and I thought he did.. but not having done much (ie virtually no) AS it didn't sink in.

No he didn’t really explain it. Brian Sibley noted that he had written back to Christopher Tolkien pointing out that J. R. R. Tolkien had used the pronunciation The[ŋɡ]el which he felt sounded better than The[ndʒ]el and that Christopher Tolkien indicated that the change was acceptable to him. He provided no reason. Perhaps this is an Old English word of disputed pronunciation or perhaps Christopher Tolkien realized that he had perhaps mispronounced it.

Sibley then suggested that perhaps J. R. R. Tolkien was intending to give the name in genuine Rohirric as opposed to genuine Old English. That seems to me to be most improbable. Thengel is a genuine Old English name. It is also one that seems to me to be equally possible to be read either way in both Old English and Modern English.

I will see what I can find out from reputable sources.

I don't suppose it is at all relevant that west midlands accents now tend to sound ng closer to separate consonants than the IPA hooked n sound - sin-ging

Not that I can see. Christopher Tolkien quite definitely reads The[ndʒ]el, not something like The[ŋɡɡ]el or The[ng]el. And what he reads is one of the two pronunciations possible for the word under pronunciation guides which recognize both pronunciations as possible for ng in Old English as in Modern English.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

You're rather missing the point. The absence of J in A-S is relevant to the extent that there was no alternate orthography for G which might shed light on the issue, unlike, say ME G-W.

Well, I now get what you were trying to indicate.

That ng is sometimes pronounced [ndʒ] in Old English is given by many pronunciation guides.

. By many, yes, but not all: that's the point- we really don't know and it's a matter of deduction.

Of course it is to some extent a matter of deduction. That is not the same as indicating that one deduction is as good as another (which indeed you don’t actually say). The two pronunciations [ndʒ] and [ŋɡ] for ng are found in more than one source and one of each is supported by one of the two Tolkiens, who were both experts in Old English.

Your gut belief that [dʒ] is not found in Old English has, as yet, no support from a trustworthy Old English pronunciation guide. The indications I have found give [dʒ] as only occurring in Old English following [n], which fits with Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation.

Is it possible that when shown that your belief that [dʒ] probably did not occur in Old English conflicts with definite statements that it does, following [n], that you are now attempting to claim that because these are only deductions, they aren’t necessarily so but that your gut feeling has more likelihood if being true? At the moment, I don’t accept that. I want something better.

(Dotted G of course is a modern convention, not found in the sources)

Your information on dotted ġ was already indicated by me as I wanted to make it clear what was meant by “dotted ġ″in the passage I was linking to. You should read posts more carefully before answering.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

FWIW, I'm disposed to think that dzh- in English, spelled either J or G, is a French import. But I certainly have no evidence to back up my gut there.

But, regardless of the pronunciation of 'ng', isn't it rather generally accepted that 'cg' was pronounced [ʤ]? (As in 'ecg' - modern English 'edge' - for example).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

OK, my gut willingly stands corrected: OE ecg absolutely has the soft g, and so my categorical exclusion is simply wrong.

Perhaps I was misrecalling the suggestion that [dʒ] for "J", specifically, was a French import.




Of course, JRRT also moved a bit between theory and practice himself: in his recordings he invariably pronounces the final consonant of Gandalf [f] while himself averring that in 'proper' Norse it would be [v].

[jallanite]

Searching though websites and library books has convinced me that most authors just don’t bother to cover ng, but that those who do all give the two values of [ŋɡ] when the g has the hard sound and [ndʒ] when the g has the soft sound, and everyone seems to agree that Old English cg is to be pronounced [dʒ].

See http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/resour...unciation.html which in I have already linked to and which covers the entire book Introduction to Old English by Peter S. Baker (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003). There were about four copies on the shelves, which is an unusual number of copies of the same book for the main branch of the University of Toronto Library.

Then there is http://www.omniglot.com/writing/oldenglish.htm which is the Omniglot site of Old English/Anglo-Saxon.

Last is http://weofodthignen.livejournal.com/158550.html which says:

Although g after n is usually sounded g, occasionally (e.g. sprengan, ancestor of "spring") it is instead j as in "edge," but shorter than in cg words.

None of this indicates how this is thought to be known, but perhaps that is because it is too obvious. Middle-English generally adopted the same spelling system as Old English, but simplified and modified it to mostly follow the Norman French spelling system. In particular the early Middle-English writers had introduced the French version of the letter g, but also kept as a letter of the alphabet a descendant of the Old English version of the alphabet. This letter is now usually known as yogh and was written something like Ȝ/ȝ. (You may not be able to see it here if you have an old computer, in which case you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogh what it sometimes looked like.)

Middle-English writers generally used the letter gee (G/g) to transcribe the sounds of gee as it existed in Norman French. The French letter G/g is believed to have then had two sounds, a hard sound [g] like the hard sound of G/g in Modern French and English and Old English as well as a soft sound [dʒ] heard in Modern English and Old French but seldom if at all in Old English. The ḟormer Old French [dʒ] has since softened still further and is now [ʒ].

Middle-English writers generally used the letter yogh (Ȝ/ȝ) to transcribe the sounds of Middle-English gee which were assigned to gee in Old English but differed from the French sounds, namely [j] (the sound used in Modern English for consonantal Y) and [ɣ] which is a sound that has since become lost in English or is fronted to [f] but is now sometimes spelled as gh, for example in tough, though, cough, draught, laugh, straight, tough, plough, thorough, and in other words.

In short, the linguists are assuming that if an early Middle-English scribe is using the letter G/g rather than Ȝ/ȝ, it must be because the sound to be represented is either [g] or [dʒ]. Therefore the Old English values must have been the same or very close to one of these choices. So when the scribes put down G/g and not Ȝ/ȝ, cg must have been pronounced as [dʒ] and Old English ng, if not to be pronounced as [ŋɡ], must be pronounced as [ndʒ].

However the closest I have come to finding verification of this theory is from Henry Sweet’s famous book A History of English Sounds (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1888). Sweet uses Bell’s Visible Speech characters which cannot be reproduced over the web. I have replaced them by approximate IPA values in curly braces, although in this case the values don’t make sense to me and I believe they may be in error. On page 196 Sweet writes:

744. OE ġ becomes ȝ everywhere in ME, except in the combination nġ and nċ, where {ɲɟ, ɟɟ} gradually developed into their present sound of (nʒ, dʒ) as in senġen, briġġe MnE (sinʒ, bridʒ) = OE sęnġan, bryċġ.

In short, if Thengel has a soft g then Christopher Tolkien’s pronunciation as Then[dʒ]el is a correct one according to current standards. I have found two modern listings which contain the noun þengel and present it as þenǵel, here using an acute accent to mark the soft sound. One of the volumes was J. B. Passenger’s A Short Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon Poetry: In normalized Early West-Saxon (University of Toronto, Toronto: 1962). My notes are not in order on the other book, but I recall that it was in German.

However at least some earlier sources indicate the hard sound for þengel. See http://www.bosworthtoller.com/031660 for the page on þengel from Bosworth-Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary of 1898. According to the pronunciation guide at the centre top of the page the word is pronounced /θeŋɣel/. I cannot account for the vowel /ɣ/ but at least this is closer to J. R. R. Tolkien’s pronunciation. It suggests that the pronunciation provided by J. R. R. Tolkien was not simply an inexplicable error.

There the matter stands at the moment. Possibly some newer discussion has indicated that the g in Thengel had a soft sound or possibly this is a matter which is still in common debate.

Note, in many hard fonts in use in the 20th century the yogh symbol appeared in a from identical or almost identical to ʒ. Indeed it was often thought they were simply different forms to the same symbol. This was incorrect and in Unicode ȝ is usually now clearly distinguished from ʒ in fonts. Yogh sometimes appears in the HoME series and there it appears in a form indistinguishable from ʒ.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Of course, JRRT also moved a bit between theory and practice himself: in his recordings he invariably pronounces the final consonant of Gandalf [f] while himself averring that in 'proper' Norse it would be [v].

Tolkien nowhere mentions ″proper Norse”. In Appendix E I Tolkien writes:

F represents f, except in at the end of words, where it is used to represent the sound of v (as in English of): Nindalf, Fladrif.

But this is an account of the pronunciation of the Quenya and Sindarin Elvish tongues, except in a few cases where Tolkien thinks fit to explicitly bring in one of the other languages. The discussion begins with Tolkien stating:

The Westron or Common Speech has been entirely translated into English equivalents. All Hobbit names and special words are intended to be pronounced accordingly: for example Bolger has g as in bulge, and mathom rhymes with fathom.

In Appendix F I Of Other Races – Dwarves, Tolkien writes:

Gimli’s own name, however, and the names of all of his kin, are of Northern (Mannish) origin. Their own secret and ‘inner’ names, their true names, the Dwarves have never revealed to anyone of alien race. Not even on their tombs do they inscribe them.

The name Gandalf is to be understood as one of these Northern names which Tolkien has substituted for the real Northern names, just as he supposedly substituted Old English names of the real Rohirric names, and invented Hobbit names to replace real their real names. These supposedly substitute Dwarvan names are taken from the Norse Eddas and some of them are somewhat Anglicized. Notably the name Dwalin in the Old Norse sources is Dvalin.

All these Northern names are to be understood as English-related substitutes for the the real names of the persons mentioned. In his essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales Tolkien writes:

Gandalf is a substitution in the English narrative on the same lines as the treatment of Hobbit and Dwarf names. It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in ‘magic’, and might be understood to mean ‘Elvish wight with a (magic) staff’. Gandalf was not an Elf, but would be by Men be associated with them, since his alliance and friendship with Elves was well-known. Since the name is attributed to ‘the North’ in general, Gandalf must be supposed to represent a Westron name, but one made up of elements not derived from Elvish tongues.

In short, Gandalf was never considered by Tolkien when he wrote the bit about f at the end of names, nor should he have been. Like the Dwarves he bears a name understood to be adapted to Weston both in the original imagined tale and in the English translation.