Re: [mythsoc] red letter day
- Optimist [thus a Chicago Cubs fan] that I am, I presumed otherwise. I
was paid, but only a fraction of what the encyclopedia would cost me.
I agree, though, that a chance to read proof on my contribution would
have been appreciated. I just caught a Spellcheck Howler ["vile" for
"vial"] in an essay, not mine, which is the kind of thing one dreads.
David Bratman wrote:
> At 01:55 PM 11/8/2006 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >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
> >turned out.
> I was paid for my contributions, as I trust were you. The contract said
> nothing about a contributor's copy, so my presumption was that there
> wouldn't be one. I was surprised to read in Drout's blog that he had
> expected that there would be contributor copies. You never know. I made a
> few small contributions to the Clute/Grant Fantasy Encyclopedia some years
> ago, and nothing was said about a contributor's copy of that either, so I
> was absolutely floored when I received one soon after publication.
> What was far more disturbing to me was the lack of an opportunity to read
> proofs of one's articles. When I learned (through the grapevine, not from
> the publisher) that the proofs were out, I e-mailed and asked: no reply.
> Drout tells the story, and explains why the project's dedicated e-mail
> address had gone dead, in the blog. (That's wormtalk.blogspot.com)
> I haven't seen the book, and am concerned over its accuracy. I made a
> number of statements of fact in my articles which I am confident are
> correct, but which I expected to get queries about. Who knows what other
> contributors put in their articles - at least one contributor once
> published a whole book on Tolkien full of factual errors - or what
> may have been introduced in the typesetting and printing process.
> - David Bratman
- 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]