Found Doris Lynch s JRRT: CREATOR OF LANGUAGES AND LEGENDS in the local library and been dipping into it off and on over the last few days. Like most suchMessage 1 of 49 , Oct 30, 2006View SourceFound Doris Lynch's JRRT: CREATOR OF LANGUAGES AND LEGENDS in the
local library and been dipping into it off and on over the last few
days. Like most such series for young adults, it puts Tolkien among
strange bedfellows: other biographies in the series cover Alexander
Graham Bell, Condoleezza Rice, Fidel Castro, George W., Lee Bennett
Hopkins, Thomas Alva Edison, Marie Curie, Willa Cather, and the
Wright Brothers. Despite a number of minor stumbles, it's a credible
effort, better than the average of its kind (though that's not saying
much). It does have some significant gaffs, however, such as her
thinking Earendil is a ship rather than a person or the claim that
Sequoyah's alphabet made Cherokee "the first written Native American
language" (I think the Maya et al wd. disagree)*. The worst though is
her claim that Tolkien's mother disapproved of his creation of new
1. "Although Mabel recognized Ronald's great verbal abilities, she
discourage his attempts at inventing languages. She feared that it
would distract him from his studies, which might prevent him from
winning a scholarship." (p.21)
2. "His language invention took many, many hours. Ronald's mother,
who always wanted him to concentrate on his schoolwork, noticed that
he was spending time during which he should have been doing homework
on his word play. Repeatedly, she warned him that he needed to keep
his scholarship. So to please his mother, Ronald destroyed all his
first attempts at language invention. Later, he regretted that he
could never page through them again." (p.33)
--anyone know a source for these extraordinary claims? While there
are inaccuracies a-plenty, Lynch doesn't come across as the type to
make up a howler like that herself, so this feels like it comes from
Best thing about the book is that she reproduces a page from the LotR
galleys with two layers of corrections (in black ink and then again
in red). It also has some good photos of places associated with
Tolkien, like (?turn-of-the-century) Bloemfontein and his house at
Sarehole. Overall, not a dud but full of many easily avoidable
mistakes. At least she put his invention of languages right up there
in the title, which I don't think any other biography of JRRT has
*to be fair, this comes in a sidebar, and in such books the sidebars
are almost always written by someone at the publisher, not the book's
author. Other gaffs in the text itself are the odd claim that JRRT
was named after his father's maternal grandfather (p.11) and that
among the nine languages he knew when he arrived at Oxford were both
Celtic and Welsh (p.34), and many more of the like--small, but
dragging down the overall quality of the work.
Yes, Ms. Dean, A great tale, indeed, is _The Silmarillion_. Yet how many operas would one fit into a movie of about 2 hours? What from the story would beMessage 49 of 49 , Nov 21, 2006View SourceYes, Ms. Dean,
A great tale, indeed, is _The Silmarillion_. Yet how many operas would one
fit into a "movie" of about 2 hours? What from the story would be
selected? One Great Tale" is _The Silmarillion_, yet who could begin to
understand all its nuances of meaning and fulfillment? And a more
perplexing question yet-- to whom could the monumental tasks of reviewing
and reading the existent body of literary criticism connected to that
particular book be entrusted, if the purpose of making a movie out of the
book were to be approached with what one could call "care"?
No single individual could capture all the important nuances of the Hobbit.
Yet in the hypnotic voice of John Houston the person of Gandalf entered out
of Tolkien's book and into the life of the mind in a new and important
way through the well-known animated version (78 min?) of that book. Just
ask John Rateliff.
We in part know Gandalf because of our understanding of the history of the
"VOICE" of John Houston. This is my point.
Who is Gandalf, now? Temporally, or con temporarily speaking, isn't it Sir
...... Mc ..... ?
Isn't he also "Magneto"? (yes ... for X-Men fans, you get it)
Do Hobbits play in the Silmarillion? Should Gandalf be played by John
Houston in the movie version of The Silmarillion?
Such questions should be considered in the making of a movie, either the
HOBBIT or The Silmarillion.
Did anyone enjoy *Arnold Schwarzenegger's *(aka, the brute's) versions of
Robert E. Howard's CONAN THE BARBARIAN books? You should read the books and
then check out those movies again. It can be quite arousing in that
The Hobbit ... The Silmarillion ... whatever. Who cares who makes the
money? WE only live so long, and the movies will last a lot longer than
US. Money motivates, but does it actually make the movie? NO. Does it
even sell the movie? ... ? Nooooo....
The point is clear. WE have the spirit and the initiative to teach about
Tolkien's writings. It is WE who should endeavor to do so.
On 11/21/06, Margaret Dean <margdean@...> wrote:
> Walter Padgett wrote:
> > First of all, the Hobbit is a movie. It's doable, unlike LOTR; however
> > would have done it, given his abilities.
> > Second, The Silmarillion is an OPERA.
> Oh, the Silmarillion is =several= operas. My Tolkien discussion
> group once decided that the tale of Turin would make a trilogy of
> operas in the Wagnerian style, the story of Beren and Luthien
> should be a ballet, and the Fall of Gondolin a disaster movie!
> --Margaret Dean
> <margdean@... <margdean%40erols.com>>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]