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

Re: [mythsoc] Unfact #2 (follow up)

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    Well, for example she tells the story of Tolkien s birth without making the common mistake of saying that he was born in South Africa, and includes why Arthur
    Message 1 of 49 , Nov 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, for example she tells the story of Tolkien's birth without
      making the common mistake of saying that he was born in South Africa,
      and includes why Arthur and Mabel started their married life in
      Bloemfontein; the account of Mabel, JRRT, & Hilary settling down in
      Sarehole is well done, followed by the struggles of her widowed years
      as the boys were growing up, tutoring JRRT in languages, her
      conversion, his entry into King Edward's School, the advent of Fr.
      Francis, her succumbing to diabetes, the boys going to live first
      with Aunt Beatrice and then at Mrs. Faulkner's, meeting Edith, &c.
      The basic story is there, and it's well-written in terms of its
      target audience, without the wholesale fictionalization of most such
      biographies (she even devotes several pages to his work on the OED).
      In short, a worthy effort fatally marred by her inability to get
      inessential detail right. The backmatter includes a list of
      organizations devoted to Tolkien the reader can contact for more
      information, including the Mythopoeic Society, the Tolkien Society,
      the Marquette Archives, and the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, so it's
      a potential gateway for new members to this list.

      --JDR


      On Nov 1, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Walter Padgett wrote:
      > What would you term as (at least some of ) "the essentials" here?
      >
      > On 11/1/06, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
      >>>
      >> 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 ...
    • 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
        context.

        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.