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

Unfact #2 (follow up)

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    Just in case the imaginary scenario wasn t egregious enough, here s one more bit: Wright recognized Ronald s great talent for words. He urged him to continue
    Message 1 of 49 , Nov 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Just in case the imaginary scenario wasn't egregious enough, here's
      one more bit:

      "Wright recognized Ronald's great talent for words. He urged him to
      continue studying Britain's old languages: Anglo-Saxon and Middle
      English. He also encouraged Ronald to keep working on his invented
      tongues." (p. 51)

      Now, for all I know Tolkien might have told Joseph Wright about his
      invention of Gnomish and Qenya, but I'm not aware of any evidence
      that he did. If anything I shd have thought he'd have possibly
      mentioned his invention of neo-Gothic, since that was inspired by his
      reading of Wright's own work in recovering the grammar and syntax of
      actual Gothic. But again, no evidence. Biographers wd do well to
      avoid statements with no known facts to back them up.

      Now that I've finished Lynch's little book, my two absolute favorite
      misstatements are the following:

      "On June 6, 1916, Tolkien boarded a ship at Calais that was bound for
      France." (p. 58)

      "BLACK SPEECH: Used only by servants during "The Accursed Years." (p.

      Overall she tells the main outlines of his life story well, so
      someone reading this as a first biography would come away from it
      with a good grasp of the essentials, but she can't quite master the
      art of getting the details right. For example, d'Ardenne wd no doubt
      have been surprised to learn she was Dutch, or the good people of
      Bournemouth to be told that they lived on the Dorset coast, or Elrond
      to find out that he lived in Rivendall. I suspect either that a
      research assistant did a good job and the author creatively (and
      inaccurately) embellished the facts she'd been given, or that the
      author knew her stuff but the text got massively overhauled by
      someone who didn't. Either way, a pity.

    • Walter Padgett
      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 be
      Message 49 of 49 , Nov 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 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.

        Thanks, Walter.

        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
        > PJ
        > > 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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.