What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Yes, no movie.

As for the Silmarillion, if it had to be done, I agree that it would be best done as a ballet or possibly an opera. Les Misérables was also long and complicated, but the operetta did a good job with it, I thought. I still think it would be necessary to concentrate on just certain parts of it, though - like Beren and Lúthien, perhaps.

First of all, Les Mis sucks warthogs. It's not opera, it's not operetta, it's not musical theatre. And it's dreadful.

I think the Sil could be a nice ballet...although Beren and Luthien would clearly be the major Pas de Deux. no dialog. You know how THAT would get. *Sings* Mandos, hear my lament! He who holds my heart is gone into the dark!

*shudders*

[Curufin]

Having seen Les Mis on stage 36 times, I tend to disagree. But to each their own.

I'm not terribly fond of ballet, really. I'd prefer to see it as an opera.

But we're getting a bit off topic.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'd prefer not to be reminded of this so close to an election. Kthnxbai.

Our delegate selection is today. Not me, though.

That depends on whether you see LotR as a stand-alone story, or as the last chapter in a larger legend starting with The Silmarillion. In the first, no it isn't. In the second, it most certainly is.

The first. I take all that posthumous work with a giant grain of salt. Some of it's interesting, particularly as it casts light on Tolkien's sense of reality, but I'm pretty neutral on a lot of the material.

You have to remember, I had committed The Hobbit and LOTR to memory long before the Sil was published.

For us, yes. For many people, no. I don't know how many times I've asked people if they've read LotR and they answer "no, but I've seen the movie," as if it's somehow the same thing.

People are that way about the Constitution, and the Bible, and the Scottish play, too.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Having seen Les Mis on stage 36 times, I tend to disagree.

On PURPOSE? Great heavens, where?

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The first. I take all that posthumous work with a giant grain of salt. Some of it's interesting, particularly as it casts light on Tolkien's sense of reality, but I'm pretty neutral on a lot of the material.

You have to remember, I had committed The Hobbit and LOTR to memory long before the Sil was published.

I disagree with you here. A person has to be discerning when looking at the unpublished material, but I think it is an important part of the legendarium, and that you miss a lot when you look at LotR as an independent story. I prefer the 'posthumous work' (as if he wrote it after he was dead ) to LotR, and certainly to the Hobbit.

Of course, I didn't read the others before the Sil was published, either.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The legendarium. Oh, aye, it's an important part of that.

[Curufin]

What is the problem people have with this word!??

This is not the first time people have spazzed at me over using it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I disagree with you here. A person has to be discerning when looking at the unpublished material, but I think it is an important part of the legendarium, and that you miss a lot when you look at LotR as an independent story. I prefer the 'posthumous work' (as if he wrote it after he was dead ) to LotR, and certainly to the Hobbit.

Well, someone wrote some of it after JRR was dead.

Of course, I didn't read the others before the Sil was published, either.

It does make a difference. In history, there are things that were said at the time, off the record. Some of it's venting, some of it's true...you have to sort that out. Then there are official versions,, written by eyewitnesses. Those reflect other kinds of bias. Then there are secondary accounts, by people who weren't there.

And outside of any of those versions, there is 'what happened'. That may have little or no overlap.

JP's movies are secondary accounts of the primary work, which is LOTR. As such, it's not much less canonical than books that were also published long after JRR was in a position to edit and approve.

[Curufin]

JP's movies are secondary accounts of the primary work, which is LOTR. As such, it's not much less canonical than books that were also published long after JRR was in a position to edit and approve.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Yes, CT made certain decisions and made some mistakes (such as on the parentage of Gil-Galad, which he has admitted). But while these texts are less than perfect and up for discussion and interpretation, they are certainly more canonical than PJ's travesty. For one thing, JRRT wrote them. They were ideas that the author had about his world, and in that case are far more important and far more canonical than PJ.

As my favorite Tolkien text is one of these essays (and written completely by Tolkien, btw - CT in the Histories tells us where he has added/taken something out, changed, etc.), I obviously think these are important!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

What is the problem people have with this word!??

This is not the first time people have spazzed at me over using it.

Just call me Misomythos. I think a word that was invented to give a more scholarly air to one's own work is intrinsically funny. It's like me going around referring to my activity today as Sawanscientia. I am therefore a Sawanscientiest.

Bow before me.

[Curufin]

Well, I didn't invent it, and it does serve a purpose!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Yes, CT made certain decisions and made some mistakes (such as on the parentage of Gil-Galad, which he has admitted). But while these texts are less than perfect and up for discussion and interpretation, they are certainly more canonical than PJ's travesty. For one thing, JRRT wrote them. They were ideas that the author had about his world, and in that case are far more important and far more canonical than PJ.

As my favorite Tolkien text is one of these essays (and written completely by Tolkien, btw - CT in the Histories tells us where he has added/taken something out, changed, etc.), I obviously think these are important!

And, as a matter of opinion, I would never deny your right to it. That's one of the pleasures of such discussions. But taking anyone's word for the accuracy of his own work isn't my way, taking any author's word for the importance and consistancy of his own work (especially with considerable evidence of, um, a good self-concept) isn't my way, and I fail (emotionally) to appreciate the need to 'create a legendarium' when 'writing stories' is a perfectly respectable occupation.

I'm not really into authority, on the whole. It's a problem. Thanks for talking with me, though.

[Curufin]

I don't think it's a need to create order or authority that I like, but the idea that Tolkien's world is so much more complex and extensive than it appears in the pre-humously () published works. That, and I love the Elves, which don't have a very good showing in LotR or the Hobbit.

In addition, the more philosophical texts, like Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth for example, pique my curiosity and make me think, and I like that as well.

But we are sooooooo desperately off topic now that we're about to incur a smack-down from a mod, I bet.

So, er, what was wrong with PJ's LOTR? Er, what wasn't?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

So, er, what was wrong with PJ's LOTR? Er, what wasn't?

See! A perfectly defensible and consistent POV. And on topic, too.

[Curufin]

And believe it or not, the first time I saw FotR, when I was still a Middle-earth-virgin, I loved it. Ah, how things change.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

[QUOTE=Curufin;609854]

And believe it or not, the first time I saw FotR, when I was still a Middle-earth-virgin, I loved it. Ah, how things change.[/QUOTE]*staying on topic, staying on topic, staying on topic, resisting rude but witty remarks, staying on topic, staying on topic...*

[Curufin]

Heh, I bet I can guess them anyway.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Yes, no movie.

I didn't like the movie either, but even I can recognise that it bought new fans to the world of tolkien. Including you, if I'm not mistaken.

[Curufin]

Er, this is true, and there's no way out of it, is there?

I guess I could say something cheesy like 'I'd rather never have discovered Tolkien than had it desecrated in such a manner...' but that would just be silly.

So I'll have to concede that yes, it probably did bring some more fans to Tolkien. Real fans, not just fangirls who ooh and ahh over Orlando Bloom. But it'll take a good amount of time before we'll know for sure whether its overall affect is good or bad. Will most people take the time to read the books, or will they just watch the movies and move on? Probably the latter, but perhaps some (like me) will join the world of Tolkien fandom when they wouldn't have otherwise.

But who knows whether that will be good or bad.

[BeardofPants]

It's just a movie. Not a war in Iraq. There is no good or bad. More fans to Tolkien's 'legendarium' is all good though. We probably wouldn't be having this quibble if not for the movies.

*does her I-AM-SUPERIOR-COS-I-LIKED-TOLKIEN-BEFORE-THE-MOVIES-DANCE