Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc]Paradise Lost'n'Found

Expand Messages
  • Bonnie Callahan
    Hi David: Definitely. Anyone who doesn t want to examine the true depth of Tolkien will either select themselves out of our group, or find out whether or not
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 23, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi David:

      Definitely. Anyone who doesn't want to examine the true depth of Tolkien will
      either select themselves out of our group, or find out whether or not our
      approach is for them. I hope that there are hidden gems in the crowd that has
      come to know JRRT only through the movies, and I would tell them, "The
      movies may/may not have merit but Tolkien didn't write them, much of the richness

      of the whole world was by necessity edited out, (or worse), BUT-- they should be
      seen as a pathway, not a destination. Now, come hither! Find out what this
      literature is truly all about!"
      .
      That's the "honey" I'd use to lure them. I'm choosing to be discreet. I loved
      much about the films, but that's my personal choice. I want to do everything
      I can to bring new souls into this world and give them a chance to "awaken"
      before they get discouraged by the opposing viewpoints. Let's be welcoming
      to all and try to avoid "belittling" on first meetings.

      I was a rather anti-intellectual newbie once,and those who helped me to enter the
      world of the scholarly/spiritual approach are the ones who were kind and had
      patience.
      They made me feel there was room at the table, room to grow--and outgrow my early
      childish perceptions of our authors.

      That's where I'm coming from. You don't need to respond if you don't wish to.
      I'm happy with my decision & the work I'm doing to welcome the newcomers. Let's
      hope as many as possible become our bosom-bros!

      Cheers!
      Bonnie
      PS You're still my favorite snail wrangler. And Arwen's.



      David Bratman wrote:

      > Bonnie,
      >
      > Let's distinguish "film-led neo-scholars" into two groups:
      > a) those who have come to the book through the films, but have discovered
      > that the book is better [the ones that Mike and John are insisting are so
      > common];
      > b) those who prefer the films or who either can't or won't tell the difference.
      >
      > The first group we should welcome into the MythSoc. The second group we
      > should not. They're welcome to do their own thing, but they should do it
      > somewhere else. They wouldn't be happy here, and we wouldn't be happy with
      > them. There are plenty of other forums for the movie folks and for the "I
      > don't care if it came from the movie or the book or the gaming cards"
      > folks. This is our forum, for people whose primary interest is the book.
      > If it devolves into a movie club, there won't be anything like it left
      > around here.
      >
      > I have no intention of trying to pretend that I think the movie is fine and
      > dandy, or equal to the book in any way, shape or form, just to "spread
      > honey" in front of people who don't share the Society's aesthetic.
      >
      > This is not to say we should blackball anybody. We should just make it
      > clear that this is a society of people who love Tolkien's works, not a fan
      > club of book-cum-movie-cum-gaming card undifferentiated LOTR fans. Anybody
      > is welcome to join as long as they understand what they're getting into.
      > I've spent a little time in Jackson clubs, and I know what I'm getting
      > into: they should do us the same courtesy. Anybody who actually likes the
      > movies, or for that matter the gaming cards, is welcome to join, just as
      > long as they understand this is not that group. In practical terms, it's a
      > matter of how we publicize and present the Society so that we attract the
      > kinds of people we want to attract.
      >
      > There will always be those who call this attitude elitist. Ignore them.
      > People who want a different kind of club should join or form a different
      > kind of club, and welcome to it. We've been steering the MythSoc between
      > the sectarian Scylla and the undifferentiated-fantasy Charybdis for nearly
      > 40 years now, and this is no time to stop. Above all we need to educate
      > people like John's co-workers who can't see any substantive difference
      > between Tolkien and Jackson.
      >
      > And, after all, if John and Mike are correct, we have nothing to worry
      > about. All those folks discovering the movies will pass on to the book
      > with little goat-cries of bliss, and they will be our bosom brethren.
      >
      > David Bratman
      >
      >
      > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • David Bratman
      Bonnie - You wrote, ... That s good. I like it, because it makes clear what we re doing and on what basis we re inviting them. Whenever I join an existing
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 23, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Bonnie -

        You wrote,

        >I hope that there are hidden gems in the crowd that has
        >come to know JRRT only through the movies, and I would tell them, "The
        >movies may/may not have merit but Tolkien didn't write them, much of the
        >richness
        >of the whole world was by necessity edited out, (or worse), BUT-- they
        >should be
        >seen as a pathway, not a destination. Now, come hither! Find out what this
        >literature is truly all about!"

        That's good. I like it, because it makes clear what we're doing and on
        what basis we're inviting them.

        Whenever I join an existing group, I expect to play by their rules. If I
        can't accept their rules, I'll leave. But if I can, I may learn something.
        In the MythSoc, for instance, I learned about Lewis and Williams about
        whom I'd previously known virtually nothing.

        Not all people are like that, though, and what makes me nervous are the
        people who attribute Jacksonian characteristics to Tolkien's plot and
        characters, apparently because they read the movie and the book on a single
        template. They're apt to become stroppy if told that no, Tolkien's Aragorn
        does not fear Isildur's tainted blood, and I fear having too many folks
        like that around.

        And many of us like Jackson too, and he's apt to become a permanent part of
        the local mental landscape. This is apt to make Jackson-prone newcomers
        think that he's on a level with Tolkien in our minds. This, above all, is
        what makes my teeth ache. I can only hope Jackson fades away after a
        while, as Bakshi did (lot of fuss over that for a couple years, though few
        liked it much), or as the Society's pretty intense Star Wars fandom did
        (another movie trilogy that was fun to watch but had little intellectual heft).

        - David Bratman
      • Bonnie Callahan
        ... Hi, David: Let s just do the best we can. I understand what you re saying about the media images predominating in the collective imagination. I have no
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 24, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          David Bratman wrote:
          >
          > Bonnie -
          >
          > You wrote,
          >
          > >I hope that there are hidden gems in the crowd that has
          > >come to know JRRT only through the movies, and I would tell them, "The
          > >movies may/may not have merit but Tolkien didn't write them, much of the
          > >richness
          > >of the whole world was by necessity edited out, (or worse), BUT-- they
          > >should be
          > >seen as a pathway, not a destination. Now, come hither! Find out what this
          > >literature is truly all about!"
          >
          > That's good. I like it, because it makes clear what we're doing and on
          > what basis we're inviting them.
          >
          > Whenever I join an existing group, I expect to play by their rules. If I
          > can't accept their rules, I'll leave. But if I can, I may learn something.
          > In the MythSoc, for instance, I learned about Lewis and Williams about
          > whom I'd previously known virtually nothing.
          >
          > Not all people are like that, though, and what makes me nervous are the
          > people who attribute Jacksonian characteristics to Tolkien's plot and
          > characters, apparently because they read the movie and the book on a single
          > template. They're apt to become stroppy if told that no, Tolkien's Aragorn
          > does not fear Isildur's tainted blood, and I fear having too many folks
          > like that around.
          >
          > And many of us like Jackson too, and he's apt to become a permanent part of
          > the local mental landscape. This is apt to make Jackson-prone newcomers
          > think that he's on a level with Tolkien in our minds. This, above all, is
          > what makes my teeth ache. I can only hope Jackson fades away after a
          > while, as Bakshi did (lot of fuss over that for a couple years, though few
          > liked it much), or as the Society's pretty intense Star Wars fandom did
          > (another movie trilogy that was fun to watch but had little intellectual heft).
          >
          > - David Bratman
          >
          >
          > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          Hi, David:

          Let's just do the best we can. I understand what you're saying about the media
          images predominating in the collective imagination. I have no desire to
          create my Tolkien art using those characters. I still prefer my inner view
          by far.

          Here's to the future of sharing the special stuff we Mythopoeics do!

          bonnie
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.