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

Re: Tolkien cartoon / bony ax

Expand Messages
  • Merlin DeTardo
    ...
    Message 1 of 18 , Sep 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- "Doug Kane" <dougkane@...> wrote:
      << ...there are some (including perhaps most prominently Guy Kay, who
      assisted Christopher in the creation of the published _Silmarillion_)
      who believe that HoMe was a "bony ax" that never should have been
      published.... >>

      Oxen of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!



      Seriously: nice comments, Doug.

      -Merlin DeTardo
    • Jason Fisher
      ... Yes, absolutely. Too, the difficult nature of the challenge facing Christopher Tolkien is probably almost impossible for any of us to fully comprehend
      Message 2 of 18 , Sep 17, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > While it is true as you point out that Christopher Tolkien
        > expresses some regret at certain aspects of his construction
        > of the published _Silmarillion_ , particularly his failure to
        > include a "frame", as you say [...], he also said in no uncertain
        > terms that for _The Silmarillion_ to remain unknown was for
        > him "out of the question" (see the Introduction to _Unfinished
        > Tales_). I agree with that fully; the thought that he might have
        > followed the alternative that his father left him of leaving the
        > work unpublished fills me with horror. To a large extent,
        > _The Silmarillion_ was Tolkien's life work, and as far as I am
        > concerned, there is no acceptable argument against its publication.

        Yes, absolutely. Too, the difficult nature of the challenge facing Christopher Tolkien is probably almost impossible for any of us to fully comprehend (except perhaps those few of us, like John, Wayne, Christina, and others, who have actually poured over the manuscripts themselves). Christopher described it this way (in the booklet, The Silmarillion: A Brief Account of the Book and Its Making):

        "To bring it into publishable form was a task at once utterly absorbing and alarming in its responsibility toward something that is unique. To decide what form that should be was not easy; and for a time I worked toward a book that would show something of this diversity, this unfinished and many-branched growth. But it became clear to me that the result would be so complex as to require much study for its comprehension; and I feared to crush The Silmarillion beneath the weight of its own history. I set myself, therefore, to work out a single text, by selection and arrangement." ([4])

        I think that says it pretty well. And I'm more than willing to accept a few missteps in the "single text" for what we got in exchange. Of course, Randy and probably everyone else here will agree with that. And in the end, we got the first plan as well (i.e., the "book[s] that would show something of this diversity"), in HoMe. I'm more than satisfied. :)
      • Walter Padgett
        Ahh, yes... Where would we be without Christopher Tolkien? Is this the beginning of another Silmarillion appraisal on this list? I can t think of anything
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 17, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Ahh, yes... Where would we be without Christopher Tolkien?

          Is this the beginning of another Silmarillion appraisal on this list?
          I can't think of anything much better than that!



          On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...>wrote:

          > > While it is true as you point out that Christopher Tolkien
          > > expresses some regret at certain aspects of his construction
          > > of the published _Silmarillion_ , particularly his failure to
          > > include a "frame", as you say [...], he also said in no uncertain
          > > terms that for _The Silmarillion_ to remain unknown was for
          > > him "out of the question" (see the Introduction to _Unfinished
          > > Tales_). I agree with that fully; the thought that he might have
          > > followed the alternative that his father left him of leaving the
          > > work unpublished fills me with horror. To a large extent,
          > > _The Silmarillion_ was Tolkien's life work, and as far as I am
          > > concerned, there is no acceptable argument against its publication.
          >
          > Yes, absolutely. Too, the difficult nature of the challenge facing
          > Christopher Tolkien is probably almost impossible for any of us to fully
          > comprehend (except perhaps those few of us, like John, Wayne, Christina, and
          > others, who have actually poured over the manuscripts themselves).
          > Christopher described it this way (in the booklet, The Silmarillion: A Brief
          > Account of the Book and Its Making):
          >
          > "To bring it into publishable form was a task at once utterly absorbing and
          > alarming in its responsibility toward something that is unique. To decide
          > what form that should be was not easy; and for a time I worked toward a book
          > that would show something of this diversity, this unfinished and
          > many-branched growth. But it became clear to me that the result would be so
          > complex as to require much study for its comprehension; and I feared to
          > crush The Silmarillion beneath the weight of its own history. I set myself,
          > therefore, to work out a single text, by selection and arrangement." ([4])
          >
          > I think that says it pretty well. And I'm more than willing to accept a few
          > missteps in the "single text" for what we got in exchange. Of course, Randy
          > and probably everyone else here will agree with that. And in the end, we got
          > the first plan as well (i.e., the "book[s] that would show something of this
          > diversity"), in HoMe. I'm more than satisfied. :)
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Bratman
          To my mind, the decision to publish The History of Middle-earth is so clearly the right one that, unless one is specifically raising Guy Kay s objection - to
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 17, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            To my mind, the decision to publish "The History of Middle-earth" is so
            clearly the right one that, unless one is specifically raising Guy Kay's
            objection - to switch metaphors, that authors should not let their readers
            peek at "the man behind the curtain" - I find it hard to understand why
            anyone would have a problem with it.

            Then I realize that they probably have a totally fanciful and incorrect
            notion of what the posthumous material consists of. Far too often, deceased
            authors are exploited - their notes and abandoned drafts are turned into
            gleaming new novels that are inferior in quality, diminishing the author's
            reputation. I've even seen it said that Christopher Tolkien is writing new
            books and publishing them under his father's name. How can we explain to
            people that this isn't what's going on at all? The only two books that CT
            rewrote at all, _The Silmarillion_ and _The Children of Hurin_, are just
            smoothed-out versions of material his father wrote extensively. Whatever
            changes or selective omissions have been made, they're not new material
            being sold as something it's not.

            All the rest of the books are scholarly editions of minimally edited
            original papers, published commercially only because Tolkien is popular
            enough that they'll sell. That's an entirely different thing than pushing
            newly imagined novels over his name.

            There are two reasons for publishing this material. First, there's a lot of
            really good stuff in there that just wouldn't fit into _The Silmarillion_ as
            published, because it's from a different angle or point of view, or from a
            different stage in the creation of the mythology, so it wouldn't fit the
            sub-creation. Secondly, because one of Tolkien's greatest virtues as an
            author is the richness of his creation, and this enables the reader to watch
            how it was made. This is what Guy Kay would rather we not see, but the
            magnitude of the work Tolkien put into it, a whole dimension beyond a slice
            of the inner history as we know it from LOTR, is itself a grand creation.

            Lastly, one of the points I made in the article that Doug kindly mentioned
            is that there's a fundamental difference in dealing with the work of a
            living author and of a dead one. There's all sorts of things that are
            appropriate to do only once the author is deceased. You wouldn't put a
            living author into a box and bury it in the ground; you wouldn't distribute
            his possessions or put them in a museum. And you wouldn't publish the
            papers he's not done with. But once he's dead, he's done with them. There
            will be no more revisions. Some authors realize this. My favorite example
            is Robert Heinlein, who kept a box of personal papers he had no desire to
            see print during his lifetime, but which he wanted published as soon as
            possible after his death. And he picked a title for the book: _Grumbles
            from the Grave_.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "hoytrand" <randy@...>
            To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 3:01 PM
            Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Tolkien cartoon


            >I feel that it is worth mentioning that publishing work posthumously
            > (especially work that an author did not feel was fit for publication)
            > is a seriously problematic endeavor. I don't just mean that it is
            > difficult: there are very good objections *against* doing it at all.
            > If I remember correctly, Christopher Tolkien later decided that
            > publishing *The Silmarillion* in the form he did (without any frame)
            > was not the right thing to do.
            >
            > Don't get me wrong; I am *very* grateful for what he has done. I fully
            > admit that the cartoons most likely originated in an inappropriate
            > ignorance and disrespect towards Christopher Tolkien's work. But maybe
            > -- just maybe -- the cartoonist is much more thoughtful about the
            > situation and cognizant of the fundamental problems inherent in this
            > type of project. Even if not, I think the cartoons could provide a
            > good opportunity for us to have a thoughtful discussion about those
            > problems.
            >
            > Thanks,
            > ~randy
            >
            >
            > (This is my first post to the list, so please don't lambast me! Though
            > I admit I got my flame-shield out of the cellar before writing this. :~)
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.orgYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Dean Rowley
            I am ambiguous about this issue because of the nature of The Legendarium , one of the terms Tolkien himself used in referring to his work. If we were talking
            Message 5 of 18 , Sep 18, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I am ambiguous about this issue because of the nature of 'The Legendarium', one of the terms Tolkien himself used in referring to his work. If we were talking about a published work or series of works and C. Tolkien was publishing first drafts this objection would have more force. This is a review of the process by which an extremely talented sub-creator/artist developed a form of mythology over his lifetime. It is not the same as publishing random notes for individual books. If nothing else we see the (?) sub-creative (?) process at work.
               
              Dean Rowley



              ----- Original Message ----
              From: hoytrand <randy@...>
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:01:22 PM
              Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Tolkien cartoon


              I feel that it is worth mentioning that publishing work posthumously
              (especially work that an author did not feel was fit for publication)
              is a seriously problematic endeavor. I don't just mean that it is
              difficult: there are very good objections *against* doing it at all.
              If I remember correctly, Christopher Tolkien later decided that
              publishing *The Silmarillion* in the form he did (without any frame)
              was not the right thing to do.

              Don't get me wrong; I am *very* grateful for what he has done. I fully
              admit that the cartoons most likely originated in an inappropriate
              ignorance and disrespect towards Christopher Tolkien's work. But maybe
              -- just maybe -- the cartoonist is much more thoughtful about the
              situation and cognizant of the fundamental problems inherent in this
              type of project. Even if not, I think the cartoons could provide a
              good opportunity for us to have a thoughtful discussion about those
              problems.

              Thanks,
              ~randy

              (This is my first post to the list, so please don't lambast me! Though
              I admit I got my flame-shield out of the cellar before writing this. :~)






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • hoytrand
              I think David Emerson s comment about posthumous works being clearly presented as original drafts and working papers intended for scholarly access is a very
              Message 6 of 18 , Sep 18, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I think David Emerson's comment about posthumous works being clearly
                presented as original drafts and working papers intended for scholarly
                access is a very helpful clarification; David Bratman said something
                similar. I'm much more familiar with posthumous publications like *The
                Silmarillion* -- where the editor polishes up the work and presents it
                as the author's own -- than with publications like *The History of
                Middle-Earth* series. Is this something that is done often? Am I only
                less familiar with them because these don't usually exist in
                mass-market paperback versions?

                Thanks,
                ~randy
              • David Emerson
                ... I remember debating with myself, when THE BOOK OF LOST TALES came out, whether I wanted to read variant versions and spoil the view I had of THE
                Message 7 of 18 , Sep 18, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  >...Secondly, because one of Tolkien's greatest virtues as an
                  >author is the richness of his creation, and this enables the reader to watch
                  >how it was made. This is what Guy Kay would rather we not see, but the
                  >magnitude of the work Tolkien put into it, a whole dimension beyond a slice
                  >of the inner history as we know it from LOTR, is itself a grand creation.

                  I remember debating with myself, when THE BOOK OF LOST TALES came out, whether I wanted to read variant versions and spoil the view I had of THE SILMARILLION, which I considered to be canon. I'm glad I went ahead and read all of the HOME volumes, because as many have pointed out since then, JRRT's vision of his own legendarium is so complex that it really needs to be seen in all its different forms and versions to comprehend fully.

                  All right, so maybe I could have skipped the early drafts of LORD OF THE RINGS, but then I would've missed the delicious tidbits like Frodo and Strider originally being Bingo and Trotter.

                  emerdavid

                  ________________________________________
                  PeoplePC Online
                  A better way to Internet
                  http://www.peoplepc.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.