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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: The Movies

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