6440Movie-verse versus Bookverse (Re: Question concerning Dwim's list)
- Dec 7, 2005
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
Okay, I've been trying to follow this conversation the past days, but
I am not sure if I understand completely why this is brought up for
discussion.. It might have been the flu though ;)
> So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
> differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse and I
> see an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of
> it as an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per
> se, I just want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate
> having this material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as
> much as anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story
> will probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I
> had fair expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point
> and a 10 point review.
Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author does thorough book
research, but you (as a reader) think it is a movie thing (maybe
because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more into the books than you
assumed). What then? I think you need to be aware of this as well. We
all can't know every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we
all miss things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...
> For the purpose of categorisation, I'm less sure. I think the first
> question we need to answer is whether movieverse stories should be
> their own category, and if so why. If we answer that I think it will
> be a lot easier to see what to do with blends.
Well, this is something I have a hard time understanding currently...
I mean didn't we had a movieverse category? And didn't it work quite well?
>> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from
>> Tolkien's letters or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales. If I were
>> better acquainted with the Silmarillion, I'd definitely include
>> that in my thinking, but mostly I think of The Hobbit and The Lord
>> of the Rings (and in their "most corrected" form,at that) as being
>> the basic canon of the Bookverse.
>> HoME, the Letters, etc., are in my noggin as "drafts and
>> background material".
> Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
> drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
> controversy, because while the details might be different, the
> *medium* is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in
> choosing the details. Even if they weren't finished.
Well the thing is here, especially with HOME is that Tolkien drafted
so many versions of one event, that it is quite often contradicting.
It is a great source for plotbunnies though, but I can imagine that
when someone explores a HOME thing that covers an event in the
Silmarillion that is contradicting... that would be very interesting
to see how you guys want to see that as categorisation because
technically: it isn't AU, you can quote canon on that.
> And Rabidsamfan, at the risk of dividing the fandom into factions...
> you write mostly hobbit fic, right? While there is certainly
> information about hobbits in the Letters and HOME, but I think that
> most of the *events* at least are set out in LOTR and TH. I honestly
> can't imagine writing Gondor without knowing a lot more about the
> history of Numenor than we see in the appendices. This is even more
> true for the elves; I personally think the most interesting part
> about them are the allusions to the "deeper matters" that are only
> told in full in the Silm, or UT. In my mind, if it doesn't
> contradict the published books it's fair game.
Even the URT contains contradicting material... just don't try to dive
too much into exploring Celeborn for example... it gave drive you
insane ;) And I am not starting about LACE, which is never ever
mentioned in the Silmarillion to begin with.
*dives for cover*
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>