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

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

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    If it s not all right, it s all wrong, especially in a book that could be used by scholars, however young. Excerpt of a review in progress: the as yet unnamed
    Message 1 of 49 , Nov 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      If it's not all right, it's all wrong, especially in a book that could
      be used by scholars, however young.

      Excerpt of a review in progress: the as yet unnamed author "mixes
      jaw-dropping statements, describing Galadriel as "athletic" (156) and
      Celeborn as "not portrayed as exceptionally bright" (157) and suggesting
      Boromir "tried to kill Frodo" (70) with a maddening threnody of factual
      and copy-editing errors that finally amount to the death of a thousand
      cuts: "Valor" for "Valar," "Borravian" for "Barrovian," "Raynor" for
      "Rayner" Unwin are three flagrant offenders. By the time we reach the
      last three appendices, sic, "Toliken Journals," "Toliken on the
      Internet," and "Toliken Recordings," the superficiality and carelessness
      betokened by such lapses devalue a book that seems redundant in the
      first place. Who needs a reference work riddled with errors?"

      Mike

      David Emerson wrote:

      >>In short, a worthy effort fatally marred by her inability to get
      >>inessential detail right.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >This may be picking nits, but since the erroneous details are "inessential", does this really make it "fatally" flawed? Perhaps the flaw is merely crippling but not death-inducing?
      >
      >emerdavid
      >
      >________________________________________
      >PeoplePC Online
      >A better way to Internet
      >http://www.peoplepc.com
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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.