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

RE: [mythsoc] The Movies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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.