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

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

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... Quibble. Tolkien was born in South Africa, an unofficial geographical entity that already existed at the time. What he wasn t born in was the nation
    Message 1 of 49 , Nov 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:41 AM 11/2/2006 -0800, John D Rateliff wrote:

      >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

      Quibble. Tolkien was born in South Africa, an unofficial geographical
      entity that already existed at the time. What he wasn't born in was the
      nation called the Union or Republic of South Africa, since that didn't
      exist yet, but he was born in the territory it came to occupy. Most quick
      biographical accounts I see say he was born in the Orange Free State, which
      is true both historically and currently accurate (although its name was
      changed in 1995).


      At 04:41 PM 11/2/2006 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:

      >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)

      That last is almost a direct quote from your namesake Robert's Guide to
      Middle-earth. Blame him.

      In general, though, I agree. You can't recommend to students a book so
      error-filled. "Toliken"?

      - David Bratman
    • 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.