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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

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