- David (Bratman, not Emerson), To clarify my email, since clearly I was so unclear as for it to require such...My first intent was to complete a quote so as toMessage 1 of 142 , Dec 11, 2012View SourceDavid (Bratman, not Emerson),To clarify my email, since clearly I was so unclear as for it to require such...My first intent was to complete a quote so as to restore its original meaning. My second, yes, was to dare to offer advice to those who dislike the films, though in fact it was not my advice, but rather that of Christopher Tolkien. You may not acknowledge my credentials or the value of my opinion, but there can be no doubting his.Beyond that, since you appear to wish to make this discussion personal, then personally-speaking I cannot help but wonder at much time you have lost, how much frustration, bitterness and anger you have suffered over the years, in criticising Peter Jackson's works, time that might have been better spent in so many ways. And to what end or purpose? Do you bring greater pleasure to anyone by so doing? Have you persuaded anyone else that the films are bad (and if so, then shame on you for reducing another's joy taken in a fantasy work)? Have you done anything constructive, as opposed to desctructive? Can you honestly say that it has been worth it, or that you look forward to another decade or more of doing the same thing with The Hobbit films? And do you really think that Tolkien's books - whose sales, I believe, have not been hurt by the films - even need your defence?If you do think time spent in such criticism has been worth it, or that you find it enjoyable, then sure, keep right on ahead. But if not, then perhaps Christopher Tolkien's advice is not so very bad after all. And at the very least, becoming so angered by it being offered seems an inappropriate and disproportionate response.No doubt you will find this email 'incredibly offensive' too; it is, after all, unwanted advice from a stranger. If so, I am sad about that, but it is in fact well meant, not meant to anger.In any event, I do not wish to become involved in further debate about this. Such was never my intent or desire. So respond, or do not, but please do not be further offended if you receive no further reply from me on this. Words are better spent building worlds than tearing them down.John----- Original Message -----From: David BratmanSent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:25 PMSubject: Re: [mythsoc] CJRT interview/article in Le Monde
Sorry, Travis, that won't do. John may deny that he said shut up and go
away, but he did. His exact words were "sensible advice to those who
dislike the film." What does he consider sensible advice? To do as
Christopher Tolkien has done: in CT's words, "to turn my head away," which
he doesn't mean literally. To do as Christopher Tolkien has done is to live
in total seclusion for decades, saying nothing about the movies in public
except for this one cry of pain. He has shut up and gone away. And this is
the advice John finds "sensible." It may be acceptable for those inclined
to it, but not all of us are. As CT said, it is the "solution _for me_,"
emphasis added, not for everyone.
I found John's endorsement of this advice to be incredibly offensive and
insulting. If you don't, perhaps that's because you're not its intended
recipient. I refrained from using those words in replying to John; my first
reply [remember that the David he was initially addressing was not me, but
David Emerson] was filled with incredulity, but I tried to omit ire. Only
when John replied with an extension of his remarks which included what I
found to be fatuous examples of what he considers practical "turn my head
away" advice did I get some temper. And to explain what was wrong with
these examples needed some detail, which is what people call "pedantic" when
they wish to criticize it.
And then John has the unmitigated gall to reply that he didn't say anything,
he just quoted CT. No, he added words of his own endorsing the remark. It
was that which generated my reply. Had he said something neutral, like
"Interesting that CT should say that. I wonder how many others can take
that path?" it would not have been offensive.
Similar remarks to John's were made earlier on this list, a couple weeks ago
I think, I don't remember by whom. I was not in a position to reply
promptly at the time, so I let it pass. I'm not letting it pass again.
This whole position of "people who like the movies should say whatever they
like about it, even in forums specifically devoted to the book, but people
who don't like it should shut up and go away" has a long history. I
remember prior to the release of Jackson's FR, when trailers were all we had
to go on about his approach, there were comments on this list to the effect
that it's not fair to judge a movie on its trailer. Maybe not, though you
have to use _something_ other than the movie itself to decide whether to see
it at all, and trailers are the best available evidence and are indeed
intended for exactly that purpose; but there was no shortage of people,
including on this list, willing to _praise_ the movie based only on the
trailer. Same lesson: like it, speak up; dislike it, shut up and go away.
Turning to your further point, I actually disagree with CT's entirely bleak
view of the Tolkien universe. Productive Tolkien scholarship continues to
pour forth, as CT very well knows, because I know he reads some of it.
Perhaps its volume is indeed somewhat encouraged by the movies, and only
some of the time is it marred by writers' inability to distinguish between
the movies and the book. (By this I mean attributing to Tolkien plot points
and motivations which occur only in the movies; I do not mean explicit
comparative articles, some of which are excellent, and so long as they do
not seek to praise one at the expense of the other, I encourage this
approach.) But that is not the point John was making. I was considering
writing something to this effect in response to the quote David Emerson
offered, but John's comment got in there first.
I sense your attempt to write charitably, but in your penultimate sentence
you cross the line that you yourself drew. You turn to the facetious that
you said I should be charitable rather than being. It's also inaccurate to
imply that I desire a cleansing of the temple. In my first reply, I
specifically addressed that point, writing, "The only other solution would
be to ban discussion of the movie from the Society, which would be equally
unfair, and impossible to enforce." Even if we did, I seek also to address,
and to hone my points for other forums where I may address, the wider
audience outside the Society, which though it knows better than to do so,
persists in judging the book by its movie. The greatest _personal_
criticism I can give Jackson's LOTR is that, had I known only those movies,
I would never have guessed that the book was one I would even want to read,
let alone love and cherish. So I must cry again and again that the book is
not the movie. I will not look away.
----- Original Message -----
- John Rateliff has given a more authoritative word, if coming from Roger Lancelyn Green, as well as a very sensible perspective. (He seems endowed with greatMessage 142 of 142 , Dec 23, 2012View SourceJohn Rateliff has given a more authoritative word, if coming from Roger Lancelyn Green, as well as a very sensible perspective. (He seems endowed with great sense, judging from his postings.) I had felt because of Tolkien's later letters (e.g., no. 252 to his son Michael) and Carpenter's biography (and Colin Duriez and others who follow him) that the 'cooling' (word first used by Carpenter?) in Tolkien and Lewis's relationship began or was accelerated by the arrival of Charles Williams in Oxford during the war, and the immediacy with which he and Lewis became intimate friends. It is popular knowledge of course that Tolkien wasn't fond of the Narnia stories, but I had never encountered the opinion offered by Bruce Charlton on the blog (http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2012/08/timing-and-causes-of-breakdown-of.html) that Lewis's writing of The Chronicles was the breaking point in their relationship, or that Tolkien saw that as a violation of their original pact to both write some fiction where the chief characters discover or enact myth, which Lewis finished in good time (his Ransom trilogy under the theme of space-travel) and Tolkien--'that great but dilatory and unmethodical man', as Lewis commented in a letter on whether Tolkien's contribution to their agreement would ever be completed--never did (his The Notional Club Papers, under the theme of time-travel). Neither did Tolkien approve of several other of Lewis's works and certainly was bothered by Lewis's (mostly unsought) position as a popular articulater and defender of 'mere Christianity' to a generation (I think because he thought it improper for one without professional theological training to assume such a role (Austin Farrer would have been better suited, from the Anglican position, I assume Tolkien would say (indeed if he did not say so himself somewhere))--even if such a role was foisted upon Lewis--and he disagreed with many of Lewis's theological views due to their differing from traditional Catholic dogma--for example, in Letter 83 (1944) Tolkien commented that 'there is a good deal of Ulster still left in C.S.L. if hidden from himself'; and Tolkien was working on a commentary of objections to views presented Lewis's Letters to Malcolm which he never finished or shared with him, but which he was privately referring to as 'The Ulsterior Motive'). I would still guess (though Charlton has disagreed) that Tolkien was somewhat jealous over Lewis's quick and intimate friendship with Williams, which somewhat displaced him as an influence on Lewis, as well as Lewis's productivity and growing popularity beginning with his war broadcasts and the publication of The Screwtape Letters (1942), which incidentally was the only of his works ever dedicated to Tolkien. That, based on my limited exposure to the literature, is the explanation of the beginning of the 'cooling' with the most evidence, including Tolkien's own recollections about the arrival of Williams in Oxford and his (spoiling) influence over Lewis's writing (again see Letter 252). But Rateliff's common sense observation certainly also seems right, that 'friendships are complicated, and the ending of a long-time one is tragic but hardly unprecedented or strange', and so accumulative and thus difficult to trace to a specific event or point in time, as well as the apparent testimony of Roger Lancelyn Green Rateliff relayed by Rateliff that 'the cooling of the Lewis/Tolkien friendship was mutual, which seems to be far more likely than that Tolkien didn't like something Lewis had written and unfriended him on the spot'.TravisOn Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, John Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:00 PM, dale nelson wrote:Thanks for the link, Dale. Having just read the post and skimmed the comments (what do those folks have against Spenser, anyway?), have to say I'm entirely unconvinced that the breakdown of a friendship of twenty-plus years' standing can be easily dated and traced to a single simple event. In some cases, yes; in this particular one, no. Roger Lancelyn Green told me the cooling of the Lewis/Tolkien friendship was mutual, which seems to be far more likely than that Tolkien didn't like something Lewis had written and unfriended him on the spot. Besides which the blogger's theory that CSL's starting Narnia violated the Lewis/Tolkien space-travel/time-travel pact doesn't take into account other works Lewis or Tolkien had worked on during that time that didn't fit into either category, like JRRT's FARMER GILES or CSL's THE GREAT DIVORCE, to name but two.In short, too pat. Friendships are complicated, and the ending of a long-time one is tragic but hardly unprecedented or strange.--John R.