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

Re: [mythsoc] The Movies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Sep 4 12:25 PM
      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 2 of 30 , Sep 4 12:47 PM
        --- 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 3 of 30 , Sep 4 12:52 PM
          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 4 of 30 , Sep 4 4:35 PM
            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 5 of 30 , Sep 4 4:55 PM
              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 6 of 30 , Sep 4 5:33 PM
                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 7 of 30 , Sep 4 6:38 PM
                  -----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 8 of 30 , Sep 4 6:51 PM
                    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 9 of 30 , Sep 4 8:48 PM
                      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 10 of 30 , Sep 5 6:00 AM
                        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 11 of 30 , Sep 5 6:16 AM
                          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 12 of 30 , Sep 5 7:10 AM
                            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 13 of 30 , Sep 5 7:19 AM
                              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 14 of 30 , Sep 5 9:18 PM
                                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 15 of 30 , Sep 5 9:44 PM
                                  ---"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 16 of 30 , Sep 5 11:51 PM
                                    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 17 of 30 , Sep 6 5:44 AM
                                      --- 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 18 of 30 , Sep 6 10:51 AM
                                        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 19 of 30 , Sep 6 3:15 PM
                                          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 20 of 30 , Sep 6 3:22 PM
                                            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 21 of 30 , Sep 6 4:20 PM
                                              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.