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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

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