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

Re: The Movies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.