The "ownership" of modern mythologies like LOTR

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You all are totally missing the point. Middle-Earth doesn't have one author. Alan Lee is an author, John Howe is an author, Ralph Bakshi is an author, and so is Peter Jackson. We are all authors. Everytime we read the books, we visualize our own Middle-Earths.

Yeah, I really must be missing the point. Last time I looked I was a reader of LoTR and not its author and Alan Lee was still an artist. And wasn't this bloke Peter Jackson making movies? So he's writing books now, eh? When does his latest come out?

Visualising does not always equal creating, BB. Because we visualise during reading and end up making drawings and movies about it doesn't mean we WRITE it.

[zinnite]

So, in that sense, then every book and film, and especially books made into films, are so-called modern mythologies.

I have always understood mythlogies as stories explaining things that could not be readily understood by certain peoples at certain times, or as created or embellished "histories" that give certain groups of people something special or extraordinary with which to set themselves apart from others (a sort of proto-nationalism, if you will).

I know that's a pretty broad brush to paint with and that exceptions abound, but, from my limited education as far as mythology goes, most are based on some sort of facts or events that did happen, and the stories were extended and embellished through time. In that sense, 'Gone with the Wind' is more of a modern mythology than LOTR.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Alan Lee is an author, John Howe is an author, Ralph Bakshi is an author, and so is Peter Jackson. We are all authors.

There's one for the top 10 list.

[Nurvingiel]

Middle-earth does have one author - Tolkien. The other guys interpreted his work in varous different forms of media, but they did not create any part of Middle-earth themselves. They are artists, not the author.

Again I'm going to compare to something we all agree is a mythology - Arthurian legends.

No one person made the definitive Arthurian legend, and really, there are many ways, not one, to tell this story. The works of Sir Thomas Mallory and T.H. White are regarded as the two definitive Arthurian legends. Many people have written interpretations of their works, and many other authors have created legends of their own. However, neither author completely created his own version. They used ideas from authors who came before them, who did the same to previous authors.

This is different from people interpreting Middle-earth, of which Tolkien is the sole creator.

(I use "legend" and "myth" synonymously, but there's probably a subtle difference.)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Visualising does not always equal creating, BB. Because we visualise during reading and end up making drawings and movies about it doesn't mean we WRITE it.

So you're saying that the Orthanc or Helm's Deep depicted in the films is not part of the Middle Earth mythology now? These images are not Tolkiens. Yet these Alan Lee-inspired "embellishments" are now part of most fans' Middle-Earth reality. It is exactly these type of embellishments that characterized the evolution of the ancient mythologies. Some changes are utterly rejected (i.e. Bakshi's Carrot-top Treebeard) while others (like Jackson's Moria) become a part of the newly accepted societial view.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
So you're saying that the Orthanc or Helm's Deep depicted in the films is not part of the Middle Earth mythology now? These images are not Tolkiens. Yet these Alan Lee-inspired "embellishments" are now part of most fans' Middle-Earth reality. It is exactly these type of embellishments that characterized the evolution of the ancient mythologies. Some changes are utterly rejected (i.e. Bakshi's Carrot-top Treebeard) while others (like Jackson's Moria) become a part of the newly accepted societial view.

There is NO Middle Earth mythology - can you get it through your head please.

And these are NOT the kind of changes that influenced the mythologies. Mythologies and legends changed because they were ORAL. Can you say ORAL?

[Nurvingiel]

They are part of the mythology. The mythology that Tolkien created. Everyone owns their own work, but Tolkien completely owns the idea of Middle-earth.

If I invent a tool, and you buy one, you own the tool you bought, but I own the idea for the tool as its creator.

I think Tolkien's works can be called a mythology because it's a story that has taken on epic proportions in our society (not because of the movies though). However, it must always be acknowledged that Tolkien is the sole creator and owner of Middle-earth.

(By the way, did you get my emial BB? PM me any time! )

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
So you're saying that the Orthanc or Helm's Deep depicted in the films is not part of the Middle Earth mythology now? These images are not Tolkiens. Yet these Alan Lee-inspired "embellishments" are now part of most fans' Middle-Earth reality. It is exactly these type of embellishments that characterized the evolution of the ancient mythologies. Some changes are utterly rejected (i.e. Bakshi's Carrot-top Treebeard) while others (like Jackson's Moria) become a part of the newly accepted societial view.

That's something else entirely. I was refering to the fact that the only thing that requires an author is something written down. It's rather absurd IMO to go and name a reader of a work its author. Unless of course that's some rather obscure trick in the English language that I haven't picked up yet. But as far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson is as much the author of Lord of the Rings as me and I know as hell that I AIN'T. LoTR has one and only one author, and a good one, his name is Tolkien.

So whoever designed the Orthanc-tower in the movie is not an author of LoTR. The image will be connected to LoTR, yes I don't deny that. For some people that will be forever the way they picture Orthanc, yes, no point in claiming otherwise (and hey, it's a cool-looking tower anyway ). But UNLIKE Tolkien's writings, that image can always be replaced by another movie, another drawing, another image. Tolkien's description of Orthanc will remain unchanged and -pretty much- final.

It's way too early to go and compare Tolkien's Middle-earth to ancient mythologies that way. Ancient mythologies are without one appointable author and are the cultural or religious heritage of an ancient people. Many of the stories in them have gone through several transformations before they were written down by someone who is seldom their creator, only their collector. The original stories rarely have survived and only mere mentions or tidbits of them can be found in newer versions. These characteristics are hardly applicable IMO on a 'modern' book as LoTR of which the author is widely known in a modern-dayworld where we have things like copyright. Try again in a few centuries or so.

[Cirdan]

With the exception of a few hard core Mooters the description of ME has never been widely accepted as a description of our history and origins. True mythologies don't start out by saying,"Oh, by the way this is a myth", except in past tense. The ancient Greeks didn't think of there gods as interesting fictional characters used to ellucidate popular beliefs. They were real to them. Christianity is filled with mythologies that billions believe. Tolkien's mythology is a mythology the same way that my son's matchbox car is a car.

[Nurvingiel]

Many Christians object to their beliefs being referred as 'mythologies', all actively practiced religions would feel this about their beliefs, I imagine.


Your arguments are very convincing Cirdan. I did subscribe to the idea that Tolkien's works were a modern mythology, which was a new idea to me. But you have convinced me to feel they are not mythologies at all.

[Cirdan]

About the Christians, even the most pious will admit that much of the bible is based on oral tradition. The inclusion of multiple creation and noahic flood stories is proof that these are mythological stories. Some use the term in a more clinical fashion to decribe the stories used to delineate the basic tenets. Many people associate mythology with an overtone of falseness that is objectionable to some. There is reason to believe that many myths are at least based in truth.

I hope I'm not too convincing. I think fictional "mythology" is more accurate and generically "mythology" just in casual speech. The phrase "Tolkien's mythology" has valid meaning, but trying to expand it as the equivalent of a culturally derived mythology is not meaningful (although I think I would not be disappointed if everyone thought ME was real).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
(although I think I would not be disappointed if everyone thought ME was real).

Well I used to think ME was real or wanted it to be real. I love how Tolkien wrote it as if it was written by the characters - Bilbo - the Red Book of Westmarch (The Hobbit), Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin - the Lord of the Rings. Then Tolkien introduces the Lord of the Rings as if he found it and translated it. I think it was very ingenous and unique for even a Fantasy book.

[Nurvingiel]

Don't worry Cirdan, I'm not relegating Tolkien down to an ordinary story. I realized after my own post the difference between a legend and a myth.

Just because it's based on oral traditions doesn't make something a myth, especially if it's part of someone's religion. Mosts religions are based at least in part, but their holy scritures aren't just myths. They're something people believe exist, either spiritually, physically, or both. If ancient Greeks who believed in Zeus as a god were still around, I wouldn't call their tales of him mythology either.

Cheers, N

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I used to think ME was real or wanted it to be real. I love how Tolkien wrote it as if it was written by the characters - Bilbo - the Red Book of Westmarch (The Hobbit), Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin - the Lord of the Rings. Then Tolkien introduces the Lord of the Rings as if he found it and translated it. I think it was very ingenous and unique for even a Fantasy book.

So true. It's like a literary baroque abstract. Great traditional folklore with modern characters in an avante garde literary style.

That's what's so galling about the changes in the movies. Boyens saying, "Faramir saying 'I wouldn't pick it up if it lay by the side of the road' just can't work." ARRRGGH!! It seemed to work pretty well for Tolkien. He believed that some can exihibit true character, but we MUST have character arc because it's DRAMA! GMAB! Even in life some people change events more than the events change them. I think they are called heroes.

[Nurvingiel]

In the movie, it was somehow necessary for Faramir to have this huge conflict, and kidnap Frodo then change his mind. In the books, Faramir mentally struggled with himself, but he made the right choice. (Not to say that heroes can't make mistakes.) Faramir and Boromir were character foils in the books.

What's GMAB?

[Cirdan]

Give Me A Break... I was ad libbing

I just finished re-readng TTT and there was more conflict than I remembered, but it was mostly before he knew what IT was Frodo was carrying. The EE did somewhat address the issue but I don't get bringing it that far, then seeing Frodo freak-out, and then senting them off to Mordor. Seems a bit more reckless than setting them free in Ithilien under more certain circumstance.


I will be there on opening day due to morbid curiosity and compulsive behaviors. The spoilers are starting to taint my view, but maybe it's best I'm prepared.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I will be there on opening day due to morbid curiosity and compulsive behaviors.

Yep, you'll be in line with your soulmates, jerseydevil, Elf Girl, swinty, and other Jackson bashers. For someone who has had serious concerns about the first two films, I find your opening day "morbid curiosity" in the third a tad bit bizarre.

[Cirdan]

Whatever...