Re: [mythsoc] red letter day
- As it happens, just Monday night I finished seven weeks of teaching The
Lord of the Rings at my Bradley University J.R.R. Tolkien class in
Peoria. This was my first opportunity to "use" Wayne & Christina's
companion, as I re-read it closely with The Lord of the Rings and pen in
hand, one week at a time on each of the six books of the story with a
final week on the appendices and other loose ends. This field trial, as
it were, confirmed the prodigious accomplishment of this long-awaited
book. The insights, both greater and lesser, make it indispensable.
Their years of effort has richly rewarded readers.
I look forward to their just-released work. Dec. 27th is the eve of my
60th birthday; I can begin hinting to Jo at once.
The news on the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia is less good, to say the
least. I was one of many contributors, no doubt, who added to the
volume in the hopes of receiving the traditional contributor's copy. A
20% discount isn't very encouraging, and "only $140" is a bit
oxymoronic. We share Michael Drout's regret over the way this has
Wayne G. Hammond wrote:
> John wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >Yesterday Wayne & Christina's new book(s) -- two huge tomes in a
> >slipcase -- arrived from the UK. An enormous amount of new material,
> >extremely well presented.
> One book, really, but too long for just one volume. Christina and I just
> got our authors' copies and are very pleased with how it turned out.
> Houghton Mifflin are projecting 27 December for release of their edition,
> but hope that at least some copies will be available before Christmas.
> >And, just to prove it never rains but it pours, on the doorstep with
> >it was another box holding Drout's new Tolkien Encyclopedia, with a
> >stellar cast of contributors.
> We got our copy of that not long ago too. Amazon.com have now matched
> Barnes & Noble's base price ($175 rather than $199), but members of B&N's
> club ($25 per year) can get it for only $140. Michael Drout tells a
> distressing story about the book on his blog,
> http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/. <http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/.>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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]