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

The Movies

Expand Messages
  • ajkjr1
    If the movies are so bad don t watch them! I personally know of only one Tolkien friend or acqaintence that has not seen the movies. So the idea that by
    Message 1 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      If the movies are so bad don't watch them! I personally know of only
      one Tolkien friend or acqaintence that has not seen the movies. So the
      idea that by making them more faithful to the books would have brought
      more of the readers of the books to the movies doesn't hold up. How
      many more? 10, 100, 1000? Insignificant numbers to a movie company.

      I am one of those people who had his interest in Tolkien revived due to
      the movies. I read them in High School and when the movies came out I
      dug out the books to reread them and also discovered the Silmarillion
      which I enjoyed even more.

      Find some other topic to discuss besides picking on movies that made a
      Jillion dollars and brought tens of thousands of new people to the
      world of Professor Tolkien.

      I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
      about this.
    • Walkermonk@aol.com
      If the posts about the movies are so bad don t read them! Grace Walker Monk (and I think my point that the supposed revival of interest in the books because
      Message 2 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        If the posts about the movies are so bad don't read them!


        Grace Walker Monk
        (and I think my point that the supposed revival of interest in the books
        because of the movies is not necessarily a good thing has indeed been proven --
        thank you!)


        In a message dated 9/4/2007 6:13:49 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
        ajkjr@... writes:

        If the movies are so bad don't watch them! I personally know of only
        one Tolkien friend or acqaintence that has not seen the movies. So the
        idea that by making them more faithful to the books would have brought
        more of the readers of the books to the movies doesn't hold up. How
        many more? 10, 100, 1000? Insignificant numbers to a movie company.

        I am one of those people who had his interest in Tolkien revived due to
        the movies. I read them in High School and when the movies came out I
        dug out the books to reread them and also discovered the Silmarillion
        which I enjoyed even more.

        Find some other topic to discuss besides picking on movies that made a
        Jillion dollars and brought tens of thousands of new people to the
        world of Professor Tolkien.

        I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
        about this.








        ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
        http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mike Foster
        An argument is ruined by turning it into a quarrel. --G.K. Chesterton ... From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        Message 3 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          "An argument is ruined by turning it into a quarrel." --G.K. Chesterton


          -----Original Message-----
          From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Walkermonk@...
          Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:27 AM
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] The Movies


          If the posts about the movies are so bad don't read them!


          Grace Walker Monk
          (and I think my point that the supposed revival of interest in the books

          because of the movies is not necessarily a good thing has indeed been
          proven --
          thank you!)


          In a message dated 9/4/2007 6:13:49 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
          ajkjr@... <mailto:ajkjr%40fuse.net> writes:

          If the movies are so bad don't watch them! I personally know of only
          one Tolkien friend or acqaintence that has not seen the movies. So the
          idea that by making them more faithful to the books would have brought
          more of the readers of the books to the movies doesn't hold up. How
          many more? 10, 100, 1000? Insignificant numbers to a movie company.

          I am one of those people who had his interest in Tolkien revived due to
          the movies. I read them in High School and when the movies came out I
          dug out the books to reread them and also discovered the Silmarillion
          which I enjoyed even more.

          Find some other topic to discuss besides picking on movies that made a
          Jillion dollars and brought tens of thousands of new people to the
          world of Professor Tolkien.

          I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
          about this.

          ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
          AOL at
          http://discover. <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour>
          aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

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



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • William Cloud Hicklin
          ... That s not the problem- the problem is that jillions of other people have watched them. ... world would be happy ... Then you would be mistaken. Tolkien
          Message 4 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com,
            "ajkjr1" <ajkjr@...> wrote:
            >
            > If the movies are so bad don't watch them!

            That's not the problem- the problem is that
            'jillions' of other people have watched them.


            > I would think that Tolkien scholars around the
            world would be happy
            > about this.
            >

            Then you would be mistaken. Tolkien scholars
            have found in some ways that JRRT's mass-market
            popularity - his 'deplorable cultus' - has been
            an obstacle to scholarly appreciation. He's
            been too often and too long lumped in with the
            'extruded fantasy product' which pollutes
            bookstores' shelves, and PJ's movies simply
            reinforce that public percetion.
          • Merlin DeTardo
            ...
            Message 5 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              ---"ajkjr1" <ajkjr@...> wrote:
              << So the idea that by making them more faithful to the books would
              have brought more of the readers of the books to the movies doesn't
              hold up. How many more? 10, 100, 1000? Insignificant numbers to a
              movie company. >>

              The point wasn't whether more people would have seen better films --I
              don't think anyone on this list was claiming that Jackson, New Line,
              etc. could have made more money from a more faithful film-- but
              whether a more faithful film would have brought more people to the
              book.


              << I read them in High School and when the movies came out I dug out
              the books to reread them and also discovered The Silmarillion which I
              enjoyed even more. >>

              That's very interesting. One thing I've noticed in online speculaton
              about the proposed _Hobbit_ movie is a division between those who
              want the material darkened to match Jackson's LotR --which I found
              generally to be grimmer in tone (more "Silmarillion"?) than Tolkien's
              LotR-- and those, like myself, who want the story to keep some of its
              lightheartedness, with a minimum of dark hints about the Ring, etc.

              -Merlin DeTardo
            • William Cloud Hicklin
              ... noticed in online speculaton ... division between those who ... LotR --which I found ... Silmarillion ?) than Tolkien s ... story to keep some of its ...
              Message 6 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Merlin
                DeTardo" <emptyD@...> wrote:

                > That's very interesting. One thing I've
                noticed in online speculaton
                > about the proposed _Hobbit_ movie is a
                division between those who
                > want the material darkened to match Jackson's
                LotR --which I found
                > generally to be grimmer in tone (more
                "Silmarillion"?) than Tolkien's
                > LotR-- and those, like myself, who want the
                story to keep some of its
                > lightheartedness, with a minimum of dark hints
                about the Ring, etc.


                Well, Tolkien himself tried to 'darken' the
                Hobbit to match LR and gave up on it- and if
                JRRT couldn't do it successfully, who could?
              • John D Rateliff
                ... Actually, Tolkien did darken THE HOBBIT, with great success, by the 1947 revision of the Gollum chapter (published in the eventual second edition of
                Message 7 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sep 4, 2007, at 10:00 AM, William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
                  > Well, Tolkien himself tried to 'darken' the Hobbit to match LR and
                  > gave up on it- and if JRRT couldn't do it successfully, who could?

                  Actually, Tolkien did darken THE HOBBIT, with great success, by the
                  1947 revision of the Gollum chapter (published in the eventual
                  'second edition' of 1951). His mistake, if it was a mistake, with the
                  1960 HOBBIT was trying to make THE HOBBIT exactly like THE LORD OF
                  THE RINGS; his abandoning that attempt was essentially a decision to
                  let the earlier book stand on its own merits.

                  --JDR
                • John D Rateliff
                  ... In fact, just two days ago David posted A more aesthetically and morally faithful film would have been quite within Jackson s technical and creative
                  Message 8 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Merlin DeTardo wrote:
                    > The point wasn't whether more people would have seen better films --
                    > I don't think anyone on this list was claiming that Jackson, New
                    > Line, etc. could have made more money from a more faithful film--
                    > but whether a more faithful film would have brought more people to
                    > the book.

                    In fact, just two days ago David posted "A more aesthetically and
                    morally faithful film would have been quite within Jackson's
                    technical and creative capacities, it could have been just as
                    successful at the box office, and probably more so, and would have
                    attracted readers even more efficiently." [emphasis mine].
                    All of which I agree to, by the way, except I'd have phrased the
                    last bit as 'could' rather than 'would', since we always have to be
                    careful when discussing might-have-beens.

                    --JDR



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • John D Rateliff
                    ... Welcome back! ... Not quite; the total is about ten billion dollars. So far. Of course, the dvds continue to sell, and they re still licensing video games,
                    Message 9 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sep 4, 2007, at 4:12 AM, ajkjr1 wrote:
                      > If the movies are so bad don't watch them! I personally know of only
                      > one Tolkien friend or acquaintance that has not seen the movies.

                      > I am one of those people who had his interest in Tolkien revived
                      > due to
                      > the movies. I read them in High School and when the movies came out I
                      > dug out the books to reread them and also discovered the Silmarillion
                      > which I enjoyed even more.

                      Welcome back!


                      > Find some other topic to discuss besides picking on movies that
                      > made a Jillion dollars

                      Not quite; the total is about ten billion dollars. So far. Of course,
                      the dvds continue to sell, and they're still licensing video games,
                      so it'll eventually be significantly higher.


                      > and brought tens of thousands of new people to the world of
                      > Professor Tolkien.

                      Try millions.

                      > I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
                      > about this.

                      Some are, some aren't. Oh well.

                      --JDR
                    • Walkermonk@aol.com
                      I haven t used the words argument or quarrel . I used the word fight. To paraphrase D. L. Sayers, who was herself paraphrasing the Gospels, principles do
                      Message 10 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I haven't used the words "argument" or "quarrel". I used the word "fight."
                        To paraphrase D. L. Sayers, who was herself paraphrasing the Gospels,
                        principles do not bring peace but rather swords. To me, my stand on the movies is a
                        principle. An example of this principle: I cannot countenance the ugliness
                        inflicted by Jackson upon Tolkien's characters of Frodo and Faramir and Merry,
                        just to name the most significant but not the only characters so treated. I
                        will NEVER think, therefore, that the movies are good, regardless of how many
                        supposed millions were brought to Tolkien's books or other supposed good
                        resulting from the movies. No unproven good will make up for the proven bad. My
                        philosophy (and my theology) does not run in such ruts.

                        Again, I will not start the fight. But I will meet it if I can. (And if the
                        list admin. throws me off for this, I will bow to her superior position and
                        only ask that David B. and Carl and Lynn copy me on their emails if they are
                        able and willing.)


                        Grace Walker Monk

                        In a message dated 9/4/2007 8:34:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
                        mafoster@... writes:

                        "An argument is ruined by turning it into a quarrel." --G.K. Chesterton


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                        Of Walkermonk@...
                        Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:27 AM
                        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] The Movies


                        If the posts about the movies are so bad don't read them!


                        Grace Walker Monk
                        (and I think my point that the supposed revival of interest in the books

                        because of the movies is not necessarily a good thing has indeed been
                        proven --
                        thank you!)


                        In a message dated 9/4/2007 6:13:49 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
                        ajkjr@... <mailto:ajkjr%40fuse.net> writes:

                        If the movies are so bad don't watch them! I personally know of only
                        one Tolkien friend or acqaintence that has not seen the movies. So the
                        idea that by making them more faithful to the books would have brought
                        more of the readers of the books to the movies doesn't hold up. How
                        many more? 10, 100, 1000? Insignificant numbers to a movie company.

                        I am one of those people who had his interest in Tolkien revived due to
                        the movies. I read them in High School and when the movies came out I
                        dug out the books to reread them and also discovered the Silmarillion
                        which I enjoyed even more.

                        Find some other topic to discuss besides picking on movies that made a
                        Jillion dollars and brought tens of thousands of new people to the
                        world of Professor Tolkien.

                        I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
                        about this.







                        ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
                        http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                        ... This is exactly like saying that Da Vinci scholars should be happy that The Da Vinci Code made a jillion dollars and brought millions of new people to
                        Message 11 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "ajkjr1" <ajkjr@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Find some other topic to discuss besides picking on movies that made a
                          > Jillion dollars and brought tens of thousands of new people to the
                          > world of Professor Tolkien.
                          >
                          > I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
                          > about this.


                          This is exactly like saying that Da Vinci scholars should be happy that "The Da Vinci Code"
                          made a jillion dollars and brought millions of new people to the world of Da Vinci. I'll bet you
                          won't find many Da Vinci scholars who are, though.

                          Carl
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          An argument is turned into a quarrel when the terms and points of the argument are ignored and simply waved away with an emotional, gainsaying assertion. Carl
                          Message 12 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            An argument is turned into a quarrel when the terms and points of the argument are ignored
                            and simply waved away with an emotional, gainsaying assertion.

                            Carl


                            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > "An argument is ruined by turning it into a quarrel." --G.K. Chesterton
                          • Mike Foster
                            With rather more than all due respect, my first posting on this topic was in response to an unsolicited aside from D. Bratman in a posting of his to which I
                            Message 13 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              With rather more than all due respect, my first posting on this topic
                              was in response to an unsolicited aside from D. Bratman in a posting of
                              his to which I replied on Wednesday last, "David, I don't think I've
                              ever accused you of being "rabidly
                              anti-Jackson." I do share Tom Shippey's view that the films, despite
                              their many flaws, have brought many new readers to the book. Some of
                              them were college students of mine and some of them turned out to be
                              rather good undergraduate scholars. Is that bad? Mike"

                              If there was a digression from this basic point of argument into
                              "emotional, gainsaying" assertions, such as Augustine is not to be
                              seriously considered as a theologian, don't lay that at my door.

                              I agree with David that the films were "pretty good" and that I enjoyed
                              them. They could have been much better in ways great and small, as I've
                              likewise said in this tangled thread. They weren't, but as a Cubs fan
                              and a Catholic, I'm used to the concept of the long defeat.

                              Would it have been better if the many who did read the books for the
                              first time, or like a previous writer today, pulled them off the shelf
                              after the films and re-read them and then went on to other J.R.R.
                              Tolkien works as well as, in some cases, participation in scholarly
                              conferences at Marquette and Aston -et alia-, had never done so?

                              That was the question I posed last week. It's a simple question. So
                              instead of hypothesizing about better Jackson films or whimpering over
                              marred visualization-and for this reader, Frodo will never be Elijah
                              Wood nor Elrond that pointy-browed guy in mind's eye, thanks-answer the
                              question, please and thank you.

                              -Pax vobiscum-,
                              Mike

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                              Of Carl F. Hostetter
                              Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:53 PM
                              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                              An argument is turned into a quarrel when the terms and points of the
                              argument are ignored
                              and simply waved away with an emotional, gainsaying assertion.

                              Carl

                              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
                              "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > "An argument is ruined by turning it into a quarrel." --G.K.
                              Chesterton



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Carl F. Hostetter
                              ... I didn t. My comment was not a reference to you. (Except to the extent that you may have intended to tag the critical side of the discussion as nothing
                              Message 14 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Sep 4, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
                                > If there was a digression from this basic point of argument into
                                > "emotional, gainsaying" assertions, such as Augustine is not to be
                                > seriously considered as a theologian, don't lay that at my door.
                                >

                                I didn't. My comment was not a reference to you. (Except to the
                                extent that you may have intended to tag the critical side of the
                                discussion as nothing more than "quarrel" rather than argument --
                                which I'm not saying you did; only you know.)

                                > I agree with David that the films were "pretty good"
                                >

                                Just FYI, I don't. Some _small_ parts of each movie were "pretty
                                good". For the most part it was just the usual cliched fantasy-
                                adventure-love-story crap I expect from Hollywood.

                                > Would it have been better if the many who did read the books for the
                                > first time, or like a previous writer today, pulled them off the shelf
                                > after the films and re-read them and then went on to other J.R.R.
                                > Tolkien works as well as, in some cases, participation in scholarly
                                > conferences at Marquette and Aston -et alia-, had never done so?
                                >

                                No, of course not; but that wasn't part of the terms of the argument.
                                It _could_ (and _should_) have been _so much better_, simply by
                                respecting the heart and soul of Tolkien's story: which, it is
                                surmised (personally, I think without any reasonable doubt) would
                                have brought even _more_ of the sort of good you describe here. For
                                your scenario fails to account for the (surely quite vast) number of
                                people who, having seen the movies and been unaffected by them, _as
                                they would not have been by a more faithful adaptation_ (in terms of
                                heart and soul, not plot-line), chose _not_ to read the books as a
                                result (figuring at best that they'd already "been there and done
                                that", having seen the film, and at worst because they found the
                                movies to be just the usual cliched fantasy-adventure-love-story crap
                                one expects from Hollywood and figured that Jackson and all the fans
                                were in earnest in claiming -- LOUDLY -- that it _was_ a faithful
                                adaptation, and so were actually turned _away_ from the books).

                                So, to turn your question back to you: Would it have been better if
                                all those who _didn't_ read the book _because_ the movies were a
                                _bad_ adaptation of Tolkien, and thus never went on to other Tolkien
                                works and in no case participated in scholarly conferences at
                                Marquette et alia, had never seen this movie?

                                _THAT'S_ the sort of question being asked by the critics of the movies.

                                Carl
                              • Walkermonk@aol.com
                                Lay it at mine, please. In the Orthodox Church, he s not. That s not emotional; that s a point of fact and you are of course free to inquire of any Orthodox
                                Message 15 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Lay it at mine, please. In the Orthodox Church, he's not. That's not
                                  emotional; that's a point of fact and you are of course free to inquire of any
                                  Orthodox priest you wish to verify it. And if you don't want to talk theology,
                                  then don't bring it up in the first place. *Especially* as a way to justify the
                                  ugliness that Jackson inflicted on Tolkien's works as somehow being good.

                                  Grace Walker Monk


                                  In a message dated 9/4/2007 6:37:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                                  mafoster@... writes:

                                  If there was a digression from this basic point of argument into
                                  "emotional, gainsaying" assertions, such as Augustine is not to be
                                  seriously considered as a theologian, don't lay that at my door.







                                  ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
                                  http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Mike Foster
                                  ... So, to turn your question back to you: Would it have been better if all those who _didn t_ read the book _because_ the movies were a _bad_ adaptation of
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    So, to turn your question back to you: Would it have been better if
                                    all those who _didn't_ read the book _because_ the movies were a
                                    _bad_ adaptation of Tolkien, and thus never went on to other Tolkien
                                    works and in no case participated in scholarly conferences at
                                    Marquette et alia, had never seen this movie?

                                    _THAT'S_ the sort of question being asked by the critics of the movies.

                                    Carl
                                    Well, Carl, we can't know how many did not read et cetera as you note
                                    above. We can only know, as John Rateliff notes, that millions DID read
                                    the book in the years after the films were shown.
                                    In fellowship,
                                    Mike




                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                                    ... But I m not asking for a number. (It is surely, however, far, far from zero.) The point is, while the readers Jackson s movies did garner (certainly _not_
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Sep 4, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
                                      > So, to turn your question back to you: Would it have been better if
                                      > all those who _didn't_ read the book _because_ the movies were a
                                      > _bad_ adaptation of Tolkien, and thus never went on to other Tolkien
                                      > works and in no case participated in scholarly conferences at
                                      > Marquette et alia, had never seen this movie?
                                      >
                                      > _THAT'S_ the sort of question being asked by the critics of the
                                      > movies.
                                      >
                                      > Carl
                                      > Well, Carl, we can't know how many did not read et cetera as you note
                                      > above. We can only know, as John Rateliff notes, that millions DID
                                      > read
                                      > the book in the years after the films were shown.
                                      > In fellowship,
                                      > Mike
                                      >

                                      But I'm not asking for a number. (It is surely, however, far, far
                                      from zero.) The point is, while the readers Jackson's movies did
                                      garner (certainly _not_ millions, BTW) are a good, it is not so great
                                      a number, and therefore not so great a good (even by your own
                                      calculation), as might have been achieved by a truly good and
                                      faithful adaptation.

                                      Cheers,

                                      Carl
                                    • Mike Foster
                                      Again, Carl, we can t know [Hypothesis Contrary To Fact] if a better [Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and Imrahil and Lobelia inclusive?] good and faithful film
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Sep 4, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Again, Carl, we can't know [Hypothesis Contrary To Fact] if a better
                                        [Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and Imrahil and Lobelia inclusive?] "good
                                        and faithful" film cycle would have brought more readers to Tolkien.

                                        As to between zero and millions of readers, I'll back off to tens of
                                        thousands, while waiting for someone who might have a better sales
                                        figure to inform us.

                                        Cheers,
                                        Mike

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                        Of Carl F. Hostetter
                                        Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:51 PM
                                        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                        On Sep 4, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
                                        > So, to turn your question back to you: Would it have been better if
                                        > all those who _didn't_ read the book _because_ the movies were a
                                        > _bad_ adaptation of Tolkien, and thus never went on to other Tolkien
                                        > works and in no case participated in scholarly conferences at
                                        > Marquette et alia, had never seen this movie?
                                        >
                                        > _THAT'S_ the sort of question being asked by the critics of the
                                        > movies.
                                        >
                                        > Carl
                                        > Well, Carl, we can't know how many did not read et cetera as you note
                                        > above. We can only know, as John Rateliff notes, that millions DID
                                        > read
                                        > the book in the years after the films were shown.
                                        > In fellowship,
                                        > Mike
                                        >

                                        But I'm not asking for a number. (It is surely, however, far, far
                                        from zero.) The point is, while the readers Jackson's movies did
                                        garner (certainly _not_ millions, BTW) are a good, it is not so great
                                        a number, and therefore not so great a good (even by your own
                                        calculation), as might have been achieved by a truly good and
                                        faithful adaptation.

                                        Cheers,

                                        Carl



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                                        ... This is not true: we don t know the _number_ of additional readers, but we certainly do know that there would have been more. ... Sales of a book do not
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Sep 4, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

                                          > Again, Carl, we can't know [Hypothesis Contrary To Fact] if a better
                                          > [Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and Imrahil and Lobelia inclusive?] "good
                                          > and faithful" film cycle would have brought more readers to Tolkien.
                                          >

                                          This is not true: we don't know the _number_ of additional readers,
                                          but we certainly do know that there would have been more.

                                          > As to between zero and millions of readers, I'll back off to tens of
                                          > thousands, while waiting for someone who might have a better sales
                                          > figure to inform us.
                                          >

                                          Sales of a book do not equal readers of that book.

                                          Carl
                                        • David Bratman
                                          ... Tens of thousands may be generous. Only those who have gone on to read the books have been brought by the films to the world of Professor Tolkien.
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 10:30 AM 9/4/2007 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:

                                            >> and brought tens of thousands of new people to the world of
                                            >> Professor Tolkien.
                                            >
                                            >Try millions.

                                            "Tens of thousands" may be generous. Only those who have gone on to read
                                            the books have been brought by the films "to the world of Professor
                                            Tolkien." Those who have only seen the films have been brought to the
                                            world of Peter Jackson, not to the world of Professor Tolkien.


                                            At 03:40 PM 9/4/2007 +0000, Merlin DeTardo wrote:

                                            >The point wasn't whether more people would have seen better films --I
                                            >don't think anyone on this list was claiming that Jackson, New Line,
                                            >etc. could have made more money from a more faithful film-- but
                                            >whether a more faithful film would have brought more people to the
                                            >book.

                                            As John Rateliff observantly pointed out, I do believe a better adaptation
                                            (not necessarily the same as "more faithful", because it's possible to be
                                            faithful but stultifying) would have been even more successful at the box
                                            office, but I'm not very sure of that, and it certainly wouldn't have made
                                            all that much difference financially. I make this argument mostly in the
                                            context of replying to those who claim that the evisceration of Tolkien
                                            contributed to the film's financial success.

                                            But I agree with you that that's not the main point. The main point is
                                            whether the better adaptation would have brought more readers to the book.
                                            And of course it would have. John thinks I should not phrase that with
                                            such certainty, but it is as certain as hypotheticals about human behavior
                                            can get.


                                            >One thing I've noticed in online speculaton
                                            >about the proposed _Hobbit_ movie is a division between those who
                                            >want the material darkened to match Jackson's LotR --which I found
                                            >generally to be grimmer in tone (more "Silmarillion"?) than Tolkien's
                                            >LotR-- and those, like myself, who want the story to keep some of its
                                            >lightheartedness, with a minimum of dark hints about the Ring, etc.

                                            What we _want_ is irrelevant, because it's so dead certain that the
                                            darkened version is what we're going to get whether we want it or not.
                                            Even Tolkien (as John also noted) was not immune to that impulse -
                                            sometimes to _The Hobbit_'s improvement, sometimes not - so why would
                                            filmers, notoriously self-indulgent if Jackson is any example, be immune?

                                            What I'm waiting to see in a _Hobbit_ film is whether the script has Bilbo
                                            meeting the ten-year-old Estel (later known as Aragorn) in Rivendell. If
                                            he does, the film gets an F. If he also meets Arwen, the film gets a
                                            quintuple F: FFFFF. (A notation otherwise only seen in the climaxes of
                                            scores by Tchaikovsky.)

                                            "F", of course, here stands for "Fanboy".


                                            At 07:47 PM 9/4/2007 +0000, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                                            >> I would think that Tolkien scholars around the world would be happy
                                            >> about this.
                                            >
                                            >This is exactly like saying that Da Vinci scholars should be happy that "The
                                            >Da Vinci Code"
                                            >made a jillion dollars and brought millions of new people to the world of Da
                                            >Vinci. I'll bet you won't find many Da Vinci scholars who are, though.

                                            It certainly hasn't taught anyone to stop calling him "Da Vinci" as if that
                                            were his surname. (Sorry: that's a bugaboo of mine, like Aragorn the
                                            Reluctant King.)
                                          • David Bratman
                                            ... As a Tolkien fan, I am used to concept of fighting the long defeat with all the strength, all the will, and all the courage I can bring to it. ... You
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              At 06:35 PM 9/4/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

                                              >I agree with David that the films were "pretty good" and that I enjoyed
                                              >them. They could have been much better in ways great and small, as I've
                                              >likewise said in this tangled thread. They weren't, but as a Cubs fan
                                              >and a Catholic, I'm used to the concept of the long defeat.

                                              As a Tolkien fan, I am used to concept of fighting the long defeat with all
                                              the strength, all the will, and all the courage I can bring to it.


                                              >Would it have been better if the many who did read the books for the
                                              >first time, or like a previous writer today, pulled them off the shelf
                                              >after the films and re-read them and then went on to other J.R.R.
                                              >Tolkien works as well as, in some cases, participation in scholarly
                                              >conferences at Marquette and Aston -et alia-, had never done so?
                                              >
                                              >That was the question I posed last week. It's a simple question. So
                                              >instead of hypothesizing about better Jackson films or whimpering over
                                              >marred visualization-and for this reader, Frodo will never be Elijah
                                              >Wood nor Elrond that pointy-browed guy in mind's eye, thanks-answer the
                                              >question, please and thank you.

                                              You asked the question, and I answered the question, with the answer you
                                              wanted. I answered it the same way over two years ago when you brought it
                                              up then, too. But whenever anybody demands a simple answer to a question,
                                              especially when the question has long since been answered to their
                                              satisfaction, it means that they don't want to hear anything else. And I
                                              refuse to simply call the readers brough to Tolkien by Jackson a good thing
                                              without adding that readers have been brought to Tolkien by even worse
                                              adaptations than Jackson, and that more readers would have been brought by
                                              a better adaptation. It's true whether you call it a hypothesis or not.

                                              Continuing wilfully to ignore the point, Mike continues in later posts:

                                              >Again, Carl, we can't know [Hypothesis Contrary To Fact] if a better
                                              >[Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and Imrahil and Lobelia inclusive?] "good
                                              >and faithful" film cycle would have brought more readers to Tolkien.

                                              and

                                              >we can't know how many did not read et cetera as you note
                                              >above. We can only know, as John Rateliff notes, that millions DID read
                                              >the book in the years after the films were shown.

                                              First off, it seems to be necessary to say, yet again, that the badness of
                                              the adaptation does not consist of the cuts of smaller characters, but of
                                              the evisceration of Tolkien's spirit, and that a better film would not
                                              consist of one with more of Tolkien's plot elements, but one with more of
                                              his aesthetics and morality. I said this, as clearly as I know how, on p.
                                              56-57 of my article in _Tolkien on Film_.

                                              Secondly, you appear to be arguing that since we cannot know how many
                                              people would have read Tolkien after a better film, or how many were driven
                                              away from contact with Tolkien by their encounter with Jackson, that the
                                              problem must be insignificant. That's unworthy of you. We can in fact
                                              very clearly determine that this is a significant and major problem. I've
                                              already given the reasons for it in this discussion, and in more detail on
                                              p. 44-45 of my article in _Tolkien on Film_.

                                              I wrote that article for the purpose of trying to get past all the stupid,
                                              irrelevant, lame-brained defenses of Jackson that people have been offering
                                              here and elsewhere, and having an actual discussion that advances the
                                              dialectic. If you've read my posts, and read my article, why don't you
                                              respond to them and take the discussion a step further on, instead of
                                              ignoring them and going back to square one every ... single ... time? The
                                              impression your line of argument gives is that my responses are
                                              unanswerable, as you so conspicuously fail even to attempt to counter them.
                                              To the extent that you have gone beyond rehashing the same arguments, it
                                              appears that we are in some agreement, so why go back to the "felix
                                              peccatum" again and again, when we already agreed on that specific narrow
                                              point two years ago? Let's go on to the next thing.
                                            • aveeris523@aol.com
                                              ... Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard is the best example of that! Steve Gaddis ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 9/5/07 6:01:44 AM, Aelfwine@... writes:


                                                >
                                                > Sales of a book do not equal readers of that book.
                                                >
                                                > Carl
                                                >
                                                Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard is the best example of that!

                                                Steve Gaddis



                                                **************************************
                                                Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
                                                http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Mike Foster
                                                Dear David, Your opinions are quite clearly expressed. I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited discussion of a topic, ever referred to
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Dear David,
                                                  Your opinions are quite clearly expressed.

                                                  I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited discussion of
                                                  a topic, ever referred to another's opinion as "stupid, lame-brained,
                                                  irrelevant." Don't you think language like that is more quarrelsome
                                                  than argumentative?

                                                  Mike

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                  Of David Bratman
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:10 AM
                                                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                  At 06:35 PM 9/4/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

                                                  >I agree with David that the films were "pretty good" and that I enjoyed
                                                  >them. They could have been much better in ways great and small, as I've
                                                  >likewise said in this tangled thread. They weren't, but as a Cubs fan
                                                  >and a Catholic, I'm used to the concept of the long defeat.

                                                  As a Tolkien fan, I am used to concept of fighting the long defeat with
                                                  all
                                                  the strength, all the will, and all the courage I can bring to it.

                                                  >Would it have been better if the many who did read the books for the
                                                  >first time, or like a previous writer today, pulled them off the shelf
                                                  >after the films and re-read them and then went on to other J.R.R.
                                                  >Tolkien works as well as, in some cases, participation in scholarly
                                                  >conferences at Marquette and Aston -et alia-, had never done so?
                                                  >
                                                  >That was the question I posed last week. It's a simple question. So
                                                  >instead of hypothesizing about better Jackson films or whimpering over
                                                  >marred visualization-and for this reader, Frodo will never be Elijah
                                                  >Wood nor Elrond that pointy-browed guy in mind's eye, thanks-answer the
                                                  >question, please and thank you.

                                                  You asked the question, and I answered the question, with the answer you
                                                  wanted. I answered it the same way over two years ago when you brought
                                                  it
                                                  up then, too. But whenever anybody demands a simple answer to a
                                                  question,
                                                  especially when the question has long since been answered to their
                                                  satisfaction, it means that they don't want to hear anything else. And I
                                                  refuse to simply call the readers brough to Tolkien by Jackson a good
                                                  thing
                                                  without adding that readers have been brought to Tolkien by even worse
                                                  adaptations than Jackson, and that more readers would have been brought
                                                  by
                                                  a better adaptation. It's true whether you call it a hypothesis or not.

                                                  Continuing wilfully to ignore the point, Mike continues in later posts:

                                                  >Again, Carl, we can't know [Hypothesis Contrary To Fact] if a better
                                                  >[Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and Imrahil and Lobelia inclusive?] "good
                                                  >and faithful" film cycle would have brought more readers to Tolkien.

                                                  and

                                                  >we can't know how many did not read et cetera as you note
                                                  >above. We can only know, as John Rateliff notes, that millions DID read
                                                  >the book in the years after the films were shown.

                                                  First off, it seems to be necessary to say, yet again, that the badness
                                                  of
                                                  the adaptation does not consist of the cuts of smaller characters, but
                                                  of
                                                  the evisceration of Tolkien's spirit, and that a better film would not
                                                  consist of one with more of Tolkien's plot elements, but one with more
                                                  of
                                                  his aesthetics and morality. I said this, as clearly as I know how, on
                                                  p.
                                                  56-57 of my article in _Tolkien on Film_.

                                                  Secondly, you appear to be arguing that since we cannot know how many
                                                  people would have read Tolkien after a better film, or how many were
                                                  driven
                                                  away from contact with Tolkien by their encounter with Jackson, that the
                                                  problem must be insignificant. That's unworthy of you. We can in fact
                                                  very clearly determine that this is a significant and major problem.
                                                  I've
                                                  already given the reasons for it in this discussion, and in more detail
                                                  on
                                                  p. 44-45 of my article in _Tolkien on Film_.

                                                  I wrote that article for the purpose of trying to get past all the
                                                  stupid,
                                                  irrelevant, lame-brained defenses of Jackson that people have been
                                                  offering
                                                  here and elsewhere, and having an actual discussion that advances the
                                                  dialectic. If you've read my posts, and read my article, why don't you
                                                  respond to them and take the discussion a step further on, instead of
                                                  ignoring them and going back to square one every ... single ... time?
                                                  The
                                                  impression your line of argument gives is that my responses are
                                                  unanswerable, as you so conspicuously fail even to attempt to counter
                                                  them.
                                                  To the extent that you have gone beyond rehashing the same arguments, it
                                                  appears that we are in some agreement, so why go back to the "felix
                                                  peccatum" again and again, when we already agreed on that specific
                                                  narrow
                                                  point two years ago? Let's go on to the next thing.



                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Merlin DeTardo
                                                  ...
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ---"Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                                                    << I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited
                                                    discussion of a topic, ever referred to another's opinion as "stupid,
                                                    lame-brained, irrelevant." >>


                                                    "Oh, ****, not another elf"?

                                                    But seriously: in 1948, Tolkien seems to have criticized Lewis' work so
                                                    harshly that he later felt the need to explain himself, and to
                                                    apologize: "I regret causing pain, even if and in so far as I had the
                                                    right; and I am very sorry indeed still for having caused it quite
                                                    excessively and unnecessarily" (Letter #113). Though it looks from the
                                                    letter like the quarrel began not at an Inklings but in correspondence.

                                                    Is there any more on this incident in _The Company They Keep_?

                                                    -Merlin DeTardo
                                                  • David Bratman
                                                    ... I wish they were; then I might get replies that forwarded the discussion. ... If they didn t, that might be because they didn t express stupid,
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Sep 5, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      At 11:18 PM 9/5/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

                                                      >Your opinions are quite clearly expressed.

                                                      I wish they were; then I might get replies that forwarded the discussion.

                                                      >I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited discussion of
                                                      >a topic, ever referred to another's opinion as "stupid, lame-brained,
                                                      >irrelevant." Don't you think language like that is more quarrelsome
                                                      >than argumentative?

                                                      If they didn't, that might be because they didn't express stupid,
                                                      lame-brained, and irrelevant opinions; and that in turn might be because
                                                      they had too much sense to try to defend some crappy movie.

                                                      But in fact the Inklings did express themselves in very quarrelsome terms.
                                                      To wit:

                                                      Tolkien: "... a most amusing and highly contentious evening, on which (had
                                                      an outsider eavesdropped) he would have thought it a meeting of fell
                                                      enemies hurling deadly insults before drawing their guns."

                                                      Lewis: "Wrenn almost seriously expressed a strong wish to burn Williams ...
                                                      Tolkien and I agreed afterwards that we just knew what he meant: that as
                                                      some people ... are eminently kickable, so Williams is eminently combustible."

                                                      Lewis to Williams: "I've a good mind to punch your head when we next meet."

                                                      Lewis to Barfield: "Take that grin off your ugly face."

                                                      Tolkien about Lewis: "Alas! His ponderous silliness is becoming a fixed
                                                      manner." And on another occasion: "Doesn't he know what he's talking about?"

                                                      Warren Lewis: "To read to the Inklings was a formidable ordeal."

                                                      These are all from chapter 4 of Glyer's _The Company They Keep_.

                                                      Lastly, I must record the piquant irony of being chided for quarrelsomeness
                                                      by someone who, quite without justification, has used equally strong
                                                      language to condemn my posts on Jackson (quoted in a post of mine of Sept.
                                                      2; I don't care to repeat it again).


                                                      At 04:44 AM 9/6/2007 +0000, Merlin DeTardo wrote:

                                                      >But seriously: in 1948, Tolkien seems to have criticized Lewis' work so
                                                      >harshly that he later felt the need to explain himself, and to
                                                      >apologize: "I regret causing pain, even if and in so far as I had the
                                                      >right; and I am very sorry indeed still for having caused it quite
                                                      >excessively and unnecessarily" (Letter #113). Though it looks from the
                                                      >letter like the quarrel began not at an Inklings but in correspondence.
                                                      >
                                                      >Is there any more on this incident in _The Company They Keep_?

                                                      Not specifically, I don't think: it's not entirely clear what he's talking
                                                      about or which book he's referring to, and Glyer's is a work of analysis
                                                      and connection rather than one of primary research. But there's plenty of
                                                      material on Tolkien's criticisms of Lewis, on Lewis's of Tolkien, and on
                                                      everybody's of everybody else's.
                                                    • William Cloud Hicklin
                                                      ... their spirited ... another s opinion as stupid, ... criticized Lewis work so ... himself, and to ... in so far as I had the ... having caused it quite
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Sep 6, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Merlin
                                                        DeTardo" <emptyD@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > ---"Mike Foster" <mafoster@> wrote:
                                                        > << I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in
                                                        their spirited
                                                        > discussion of a topic, ever referred to
                                                        another's opinion as "stupid,
                                                        > lame-brained, irrelevant." >>
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > "Oh, ****, not another elf"?
                                                        >
                                                        > But seriously: in 1948, Tolkien seems to have
                                                        criticized Lewis' work so
                                                        > harshly that he later felt the need to explain
                                                        himself, and to
                                                        > apologize: "I regret causing pain, even if and
                                                        in so far as I had the
                                                        > right; and I am very sorry indeed still for
                                                        having caused it quite
                                                        > excessively and unnecessarily" (Letter #113).
                                                        Though it looks from the
                                                        > letter like the quarrel began not at an
                                                        Inklings but in correspondence.
                                                        >
                                                        > Is there any more on this incident in _The
                                                        Company They Keep_?
                                                        >


                                                        Myself I get the impression that a 'harsh'
                                                        criticism by Inklings standards would have been
                                                        akin to Tolkien's (private) "ponderous
                                                        silliness" comment on Lewis' style. They were,
                                                        after all, a) British and b) dons.
                                                      • John D Rateliff
                                                        ... For Tolkien s attempt to portray what their exchange was like, see the first chapter of THE NOTION CLUB PAPERS (HME.IX). Incidently, I asked several
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Sep 6, 2007
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          On Sep 6, 2007, at 5:44 AM, William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
                                                          > Myself I get the impression that a 'harsh' criticism by Inklings
                                                          > standards would have been akin to Tolkien's (private) "ponderous
                                                          > silliness" comment on Lewis' style. They were, after all, a)
                                                          > British and b) dons.

                                                          For Tolkien's attempt to portray what their exchange was like, see
                                                          the first chapter of THE NOTION CLUB PAPERS (HME.IX).
                                                          Incidently, I asked several Inklings what they thought of the
                                                          "Thursday Night" chapter in Carpenter's book, and they all felt that
                                                          while it was a fine piece of writing and very cleverly done, it
                                                          didn't convey what an actual Inklings meeting was like. Warnie's
                                                          diary entries, and Tolkien's letters, give us our best glimpse, brief
                                                          as those are.

                                                          --JDR

                                                          "Interior is Anterior" --Owen Barfield, UNANCESTRAL VOICE.
                                                        • Mike Foster
                                                          Yesterday, David, you wrote, I have said that as movies on their own I think they re pretty good. Today they re crappy. Disgreeing is one thing; being
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Sep 6, 2007
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Yesterday, David, you wrote, "I have said
                                                            that as movies on their own I think they're pretty good."

                                                            Today they're "crappy."

                                                            Disgreeing is one thing; being disagreeable is another.

                                                            Cheers,
                                                            Mike

                                                            -----Original Message-----
                                                            From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                            Of David Bratman
                                                            Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:51 AM
                                                            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                            At 11:18 PM 9/5/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

                                                            >Your opinions are quite clearly expressed.

                                                            I wish they were; then I might get replies that forwarded the
                                                            discussion.

                                                            >I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited discussion
                                                            of
                                                            >a topic, ever referred to another's opinion as "stupid, lame-brained,
                                                            >irrelevant." Don't you think language like that is more quarrelsome
                                                            >than argumentative?

                                                            If they didn't, that might be because they didn't express stupid,
                                                            lame-brained, and irrelevant opinions; and that in turn might be because
                                                            they had too much sense to try to defend some crappy movie.

                                                            But in fact the Inklings did express themselves in very quarrelsome
                                                            terms.
                                                            To wit:

                                                            Tolkien: "... a most amusing and highly contentious evening, on which
                                                            (had
                                                            an outsider eavesdropped) he would have thought it a meeting of fell
                                                            enemies hurling deadly insults before drawing their guns."

                                                            Lewis: "Wrenn almost seriously expressed a strong wish to burn Williams
                                                            ...
                                                            Tolkien and I agreed afterwards that we just knew what he meant: that as
                                                            some people ... are eminently kickable, so Williams is eminently
                                                            combustible."

                                                            Lewis to Williams: "I've a good mind to punch your head when we next
                                                            meet."

                                                            Lewis to Barfield: "Take that grin off your ugly face."

                                                            Tolkien about Lewis: "Alas! His ponderous silliness is becoming a fixed
                                                            manner." And on another occasion: "Doesn't he know what he's talking
                                                            about?"

                                                            Warren Lewis: "To read to the Inklings was a formidable ordeal."

                                                            These are all from chapter 4 of Glyer's _The Company They Keep_.

                                                            Lastly, I must record the piquant irony of being chided for
                                                            quarrelsomeness
                                                            by someone who, quite without justification, has used equally strong
                                                            language to condemn my posts on Jackson (quoted in a post of mine of
                                                            Sept.
                                                            2; I don't care to repeat it again).

                                                            At 04:44 AM 9/6/2007 +0000, Merlin DeTardo wrote:

                                                            >But seriously: in 1948, Tolkien seems to have criticized Lewis' work so

                                                            >harshly that he later felt the need to explain himself, and to
                                                            >apologize: "I regret causing pain, even if and in so far as I had the
                                                            >right; and I am very sorry indeed still for having caused it quite
                                                            >excessively and unnecessarily" (Letter #113). Though it looks from the
                                                            >letter like the quarrel began not at an Inklings but in correspondence.
                                                            >
                                                            >Is there any more on this incident in _The Company They Keep_?

                                                            Not specifically, I don't think: it's not entirely clear what he's
                                                            talking
                                                            about or which book he's referring to, and Glyer's is a work of analysis
                                                            and connection rather than one of primary research. But there's plenty
                                                            of
                                                            material on Tolkien's criticisms of Lewis, on Lewis's of Tolkien, and on
                                                            everybody's of everybody else's.



                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          • Mike Foster
                                                            Typo corrected, another casualty of the Ready.FIRE!...aim nature of E-mail. ... From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Sep 6, 2007
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Typo corrected, another casualty of the "Ready.FIRE!...aim" nature of
                                                              E-mail.

                                                              -----Original Message-----
                                                              From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                              Of Mike Foster
                                                              Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:16 PM
                                                              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                                              Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                              Yesterday, David, you wrote, "I have said
                                                              that as movies on their own I think they're pretty good."

                                                              Today they're "crappy."

                                                              Disgreeing is one thing; being disagreeable is another.

                                                              Cheers,
                                                              Mike

                                                              -----Original Message-----
                                                              From: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                                                              [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
                                                              Behalf
                                                              Of David Bratman
                                                              Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:51 AM
                                                              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                                                              Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                              At 11:18 PM 9/5/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

                                                              >Your opinions are quite clearly expressed.

                                                              I wish they were; then I might get replies that forwarded the
                                                              discussion.

                                                              >I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited discussion
                                                              of
                                                              >a topic, ever referred to another's opinion as "stupid, lame-brained,
                                                              >irrelevant." Don't you think language like that is more quarrelsome
                                                              >than argumentative?

                                                              If they didn't, that might be because they didn't express stupid,
                                                              lame-brained, and irrelevant opinions; and that in turn might be because
                                                              they had too much sense to try to defend some crappy movie.

                                                              But in fact the Inklings did express themselves in very quarrelsome
                                                              terms.
                                                              To wit:

                                                              Tolkien: "... a most amusing and highly contentious evening, on which
                                                              (had
                                                              an outsider eavesdropped) he would have thought it a meeting of fell
                                                              enemies hurling deadly insults before drawing their guns."

                                                              Lewis: "Wrenn almost seriously expressed a strong wish to burn Williams
                                                              ...
                                                              Tolkien and I agreed afterwards that we just knew what he meant: that as
                                                              some people ... are eminently kickable, so Williams is eminently
                                                              combustible."

                                                              Lewis to Williams: "I've a good mind to punch your head when we next
                                                              meet."

                                                              Lewis to Barfield: "Take that grin off your ugly face."

                                                              Tolkien about Lewis: "Alas! His ponderous silliness is becoming a fixed
                                                              manner." And on another occasion: "Doesn't he know what he's talking
                                                              about?"

                                                              Warren Lewis: "To read to the Inklings was a formidable ordeal."

                                                              These are all from chapter 4 of Glyer's _The Company They Keep_.

                                                              Lastly, I must record the piquant irony of being chided for
                                                              quarrelsomeness
                                                              by someone who, quite without justification, has used equally strong
                                                              language to condemn my posts on Jackson (quoted in a post of mine of
                                                              Sept.
                                                              2; I don't care to repeat it again).

                                                              At 04:44 AM 9/6/2007 +0000, Merlin DeTardo wrote:

                                                              >But seriously: in 1948, Tolkien seems to have criticized Lewis' work so

                                                              >harshly that he later felt the need to explain himself, and to
                                                              >apologize: "I regret causing pain, even if and in so far as I had the
                                                              >right; and I am very sorry indeed still for having caused it quite
                                                              >excessively and unnecessarily" (Letter #113). Though it looks from the
                                                              >letter like the quarrel began not at an Inklings but in correspondence.
                                                              >
                                                              >Is there any more on this incident in _The Company They Keep_?

                                                              Not specifically, I don't think: it's not entirely clear what he's
                                                              talking
                                                              about or which book he's referring to, and Glyer's is a work of analysis
                                                              and connection rather than one of primary research. But there's plenty
                                                              of
                                                              material on Tolkien's criticisms of Lewis, on Lewis's of Tolkien, and on
                                                              everybody's of everybody else's.


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



                                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                            • Mike Foster
                                                              As Bullwinkle used to say to Rocky, This time for sure! Agreeably, Mike ... From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@hughes.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Sep 6, 2007
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                As Bullwinkle used to say to Rocky, "This time for sure!"

                                                                Agreeably,
                                                                Mike

                                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                                From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@...]
                                                                Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:22 PM
                                                                To: 'mythsoc@yahoogroups.com'
                                                                Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                                Typo corrected, another casualty of the "Ready.FIRE!...aim" nature of
                                                                E-mail.

                                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                                From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                                Of Mike Foster
                                                                Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:16 PM
                                                                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                                                Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                                Yesterday, David, you wrote, "I have said
                                                                that as movies on their own I think they're pretty good."

                                                                Today they're "crappy."

                                                                Disagreeing is one thing; being disagreeable is another.

                                                                Cheers,
                                                                Mike

                                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                                From: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                                                                [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
                                                                Behalf
                                                                Of David Bratman
                                                                Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:51 AM
                                                                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                                                                Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

                                                                At 11:18 PM 9/5/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

                                                                >Your opinions are quite clearly expressed.

                                                                I wish they were; then I might get replies that forwarded the
                                                                discussion.

                                                                >I must wonder, however, if the Inklings, in their spirited discussion
                                                                of
                                                                >a topic, ever referred to another's opinion as "stupid, lame-brained,
                                                                >irrelevant." Don't you think language like that is more quarrelsome
                                                                >than argumentative?

                                                                If they didn't, that might be because they didn't express stupid,
                                                                lame-brained, and irrelevant opinions; and that in turn might be because
                                                                they had too much sense to try to defend some crappy movie.

                                                                But in fact the Inklings did express themselves in very quarrelsome
                                                                terms.
                                                                To wit:

                                                                Tolkien: "... a most amusing and highly contentious evening, on which
                                                                (had
                                                                an outsider eavesdropped) he would have thought it a meeting of fell
                                                                enemies hurling deadly insults before drawing their guns."

                                                                Lewis: "Wrenn almost seriously expressed a strong wish to burn Williams
                                                                ...
                                                                Tolkien and I agreed afterwards that we just knew what he meant: that as
                                                                some people ... are eminently kickable, so Williams is eminently
                                                                combustible."

                                                                Lewis to Williams: "I've a good mind to punch your head when we next
                                                                meet."

                                                                Lewis to Barfield: "Take that grin off your ugly face."

                                                                Tolkien about Lewis: "Alas! His ponderous silliness is becoming a fixed
                                                                manner." And on another occasion: "Doesn't he know what he's talking
                                                                about?"

                                                                Warren Lewis: "To read to the Inklings was a formidable ordeal."

                                                                These are all from chapter 4 of Glyer's _The Company They Keep_.

                                                                Lastly, I must record the piquant irony of being chided for
                                                                quarrelsomeness
                                                                by someone who, quite without justification, has used equally strong
                                                                language to condemn my posts on Jackson (quoted in a post of mine of
                                                                Sept.
                                                                2; I don't care to repeat it again).

                                                                At 04:44 AM 9/6/2007 +0000, Merlin DeTardo wrote:

                                                                >But seriously: in 1948, Tolkien seems to have criticized Lewis' work so

                                                                >harshly that he later felt the need to explain himself, and to
                                                                >apologize: "I regret causing pain, even if and in so far as I had the
                                                                >right; and I am very sorry indeed still for having caused it quite
                                                                >excessively and unnecessarily" (Letter #113). Though it looks from the
                                                                >letter like the quarrel began not at an Inklings but in correspondence.
                                                                >
                                                                >Is there any more on this incident in _The Company They Keep_?

                                                                Not specifically, I don't think: it's not entirely clear what he's
                                                                talking
                                                                about or which book he's referring to, and Glyer's is a work of analysis
                                                                and connection rather than one of primary research. But there's plenty
                                                                of
                                                                material on Tolkien's criticisms of Lewis, on Lewis's of Tolkien, and on
                                                                everybody's of everybody else's.


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



                                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.