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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

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