Re: [mythsoc] Unfact #2 (follow up)
- 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?"
David Emerson wrote:
>>In short, a worthy effort fatally marred by her inability to get[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>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?
>A better way to Internet
>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
>Yahoo! Groups Links
- 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.
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
> > 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]