Tolkien vs Jackson

[columbus]

My guess would be that's when it enters public domain.
Here's a question for fans - would you want to see reimaginings/rewritings of Middle Earth . But the idea of someone else's Middle Earth is less comforting.

Shelob's darkest holes

Gandalf it Hurts!

Why Frodo left the Shire

Arwen does Archet

Bilbo and the Night of the Dwarves

Tom

 

[Riverwolf]

Here's a question for fans - would you want to see reimaginings/rewritings of Middle Earth the way I've seen with many books about Oz? (Wicked being the most prominent, but certainly not the only one.) I really like the alternate Oz books - dystopian Oz or post-Dorothy oz, and so on, there's a collection of short stories where everyone is a different reimagining. But the idea of someone else's Middle Earth is less comforting.

I think a large part of that is because it's still somewhat fresh, and because Tolkien's own perfectionism kinda came out through his work and into a large part of the fanbase. Plus, from what I've seen, literary purism seems to have risen quite high in more recent years, in regards to more recent works. It's almost like it's okay to screw with works that are pre-WWII, but everything after that is UNTOUCHABLE!

Plus... well, I'm going to be frank. I love Wicked (the musical; haven't read the book all the way through, yet) to DEATH. The Wizard of Oz movie (that is, the only one anyone ever thinks of when "the Wizard of Oz is ever brought up) is a childhood favorite, and today still holds up incredibly well. However... I didn't really like L. Frank Baum's original Wizard of Oz book. Granted I never finished it, but it just didn't... I don't know. Something about it was just not my thing.

In other words, I prefer the fan-adaptations and reinterpretations over the author's not-so-sacred original.

For myself, I'd love to see more interpretations and adaptations of Tolkien's work. Heck, I'd love to see much more variety in adaptations of artistic works to other mediums.

However, the primary problem with doing it with Tolkien's work... is that it's so detailed and rich with history and backstory that Tolkien was developing over his entire life. That introduces an element of sacredness that doesn't exist with Oz, since it lacked that kind of complexity. You can't just take the basic plot of Hobbit-LOTR and plop it into another setting (like you could with, say, any of Shakespeare's work); the story is far too intricately tied to the Lore of Tolkien's Middle Earth.

What you CAN do, however, is tell new stories in the same world. While I've never read it myself, I've heard of an LOTR fanfiction that was written by a doctor, about someone who lives in Middle Earth as a wartime healer; supposedly the author drew upon his medical and historical knowledge (as well as his knowledge of Middle Earth) to craft medicinal techniques that are accurate to what it might be. That's a great way to do it: explore the world with new characters and situations.

 

[Nietzsche]

My guess would be that's when it enters public domain. Like Alice in Wonderland and Baum's Oz that could be a horrible thing or a great thing. The Silmarillion is such a history book though -despite some great stories in it - that it's possible it would be overlooked, or alternatively we'll have dozens of adaptations - again like the Oz and Wonderland movies and books that popped up.

Here's a question for fans - would you want to see reimaginings/rewritings of Middle Earth the way I've seen with many books about Oz? (Wicked being the most prominent, but certainly not the only one.) I really like the alternate Oz books - dystopian Oz or post-Dorothy oz, and so on, there's a collection of short stories where everyone is a different reimagining. But the idea of someone else's Middle Earth is less comforting.

I'd be interested, but I'd preface all of them with the very important note that Tolkien would not have accepted revisions to his work because of the very nature of the world he created. Destiny was plainly very real in Arda, and because of it things could only, at the very least, go in one general direction. There might be room for minor changes, but on the whole things would end up roughly as they had.

With that noted, I've always wanted to see a world where Sauron managed to recapture the Ring, but only after his larger armies were defeated piecemeal. Sauron, had he just decided to go forth and conquer, could have ground Middle Earth beneath his heel without the extra power his Ring granted him. But he was too cautious in the beginning and missed his opportunity. He could then have searched for the Ring through the soot and dust of the world he crushed. I mean, it's not like someone could destroy it on accident.

 

[Drolefille]

I'd be interested, but I'd preface all of them with the very important note that Tolkien would not have accepted revisions to his work because of the very nature of the world he created. Destiny was plainly very real in Arda, and because of it things could only, at the very least, go in one general direction. There might be room for minor changes, but on the whole things would end up roughly as they had.

With that noted, I've always wanted to see a world where Sauron managed to recapture the Ring, but only after his larger armies were defeated piecemeal. Sauron, had he just decided to go forth and conquer, could have ground Middle Earth beneath his heel without the extra power his Ring granted him. But he was too cautious in the beginning and missed his opportunity. He could then have searched for the Ring through the soot and dust of the world he crushed. I mean, it's not like someone could destroy it on accident.

A big part of this was that Sauron never believed that anyone would do anything but try to use the ring against him. Hide it? Maybe. But destroy it? NEVER. It would be interesting to see what could have happened had Gondor taken the ring as Boromir wanted. Probably nothing good, much as Galadriel would be a dark queen, even Aragorn wasn't immune to the ring.

 

[Nietzsche]

A big part of this was that Sauron never believed that anyone would do anything but try to use the ring against him. Hide it? Maybe. But destroy it? NEVER. It would be interesting to see what could have happened had Gondor taken the ring as Boromir wanted. Probably nothing good, much as Galadriel would be a dark queen, even Aragorn wasn't immune to the ring.

Gah! I forgot all about that. The problem of Evil being that it literally cannot imagine someone doing something selflessly.

I would also actually have liked to see Saruman or Galadriel grabbing the Ring. After all, while it bestowed only invisibility and a few other mostly-useless things on Lesser Races for Maiar, Numenoreans and the stronger Elves it would give a massive increase to their power. That being because it amplifies the power you already have. So if you're crap to start, you become maybe a little-better than average. But if you're Heavy-Hitter tier? You basically become a physical god.

(That isn't for you, that's for people who may not know why the Ring only seemed to make Frodo, Bilbo and such invisible, and why it was so desperately wanted beyond the +99 Boost to Avarice.)

 

[Drolefille]

Gah! I forgot all about that. The problem of Evil being that it literally cannot imagine someone doing something selflessly.

I would also actually have liked to see Saruman or Galadriel grabbing the Ring. After all, while it bestowed only invisibility and a few other mostly-useless things on Lesser Races for Maiar, Numenoreans and the stronger Elves it would give a massive increase to their power. That being because it amplifies the power you already have. So if you're crap to start, you become maybe a little-better than average. But if you're Heavy-Hitter tier? You basically become a physical god.

(That isn't for you, that's for people who may not know why the Ring only seemed to make Frodo, Bilbo and such invisible, and why it was so desperately wanted beyond the +99 Boost to Avarice.)

I think it's debatable whether using the ring would still mean you'd fall to Sauron or if you'd replace him as the big bad. I can't remember what the books actually said. Either would be an interesting story. I think Tolkein's works are so archetypal - they literally set the groundwork for the epic fantasy genre - that they're hard to ... riff on? Not so much parody as that's been done, but I can't imagine a Middle Earth where, lets say Saruman successfully keeps the Shire. Maybe that's because I'm not an author.

 

[Nietzsche]

I think it's debatable whether using the ring would still mean you'd fall to Sauron or if you'd replace him as the big bad. I can't remember what the books actually said. Either would be an interesting story. I think Tolkein's works are so archetypal - they literally set the groundwork for the epic fantasy genre - that they're hard to ... riff on? Not so much parody as that's been done, but I can't imagine a Middle Earth where, lets say Saruman successfully keeps the Shire. Maybe that's because I'm not an author.

It would depend on whos' will was the strongest. You could argue that because Sauron(well, The Enemy in general but acting through Sauron) corrupted Saruman that Saruman could never truly challenge Sauron, much in the same way Sauron could never truly challenge Morgoth. However, this is forgetting that Saruman, Sauron & Gandalf are members of the same race or class(not in the RPG sense).

Morgoth, even as the weakest of the Valar by the time he was fully corrupt, could still have smote Sauron in an instant before Sauron forged the Ring. After that, I believe Tolkien stated that Sauron had done what Morgoth couldn't, namely, he created something. He used materials and knowledge from others, but it was still original in some way. There was more than pure contempt and hate in its construction, much like how Aule made the Dwarves. They were obviously of Illuvatar but they still retained a spark of creativity & originality.

The Ring in that regard is how Sauron eclipsed his master. And even this is because Sauron was inherently 'more good' than Morgoth, because according to Tolkien the simple fact that Sauron was willing to do the work of another(that is, not acting purely of his own self) meant that he had some small sliver of inherent morality & goodness in him. This can also be seen in what little we know of Sauron's actual goals regarding Middle Earth. Morgoth would have "ground the Universe to dust and then hated the dust". But with Sauron, we see a measure of care, however fickle it may be, in his armies and captains. He created a language for them(I believe it was Sauron who crafted the Black Speech, correct me if not) and was willing to dole out power & reward(however little) to those he favoured.

Do note; I am not saying that Sauron with the Ring is more powerful than Melkor, or even the Morgoth after the end of the first war. But by the time he's chained down outside Arda? That Morgoth would likely be smitten by Ringed Sauron.

TLDR; Sauron created something rather than just corrupting it. Corruption was involved, but was it not just mockery of someone elses' work. And because of that sliver of good still within him, he would forever be Morgoth's superior in power and influence.

 

[Drolefille]

Tolkien went back and forth on whether evil could create - he started with no, stating that orcs and trolls were corrupted elves for example, but then backed off of that apparently later. But as you noted regardless of creating life, Sauron does create the ring(s).

You should check out the /r/tolkienfans subreddit on Reddit for the indepth stuff. It has been far too long since I've read the Silmarillion and I've never read the other stuff that came out from his notes.

 

[Nietzsche]

Tolkien went back and forth on whether evil could create - he started with no, stating that orcs and trolls were corrupted elves for example, but then backed off of that apparently later. But as you noted regardless of creating life, Sauron does create the ring(s).

I've never understood why it couldn't be both. The Original Orcs could very well have been tortured Elves, mutilated by Melkor's foul influence and designs, and because Melkor was so incredibly powerful some of his inherent evil quickly rubbed off and onto them, within them, and thus when it came time to breed(which Tolkien does mention the Orcs as doing) those traits that had initially just been wounds became a part of who and what they were. This would make the Original Orcs horribly tortured Elves, and the following Orcs a sub-set of Elves. Something similar could likely have happened with the Trolls, being spawned instead from Ents.

The differences between Troll and Ent are hardly differences, so different they become alike. What does a tree need to survive? Sunlight, water, so on. But what does Stone need? Nothing, and certainly not sunlight. So when the Trolls(true Trolls) are exposed to sunlight, they literally petrify. Obviously rocks don't become not-rocks because of a lack of sunlight, but the duality is what's important. They went from flora to mineral. It was only after Morgoth & later Sauron managed to breed in Orc and eventually Men that they were able to go out into the sun. Which supports the idea, I think. The Trolls were slowly 'tiered down' until they could mate with Men and thus gain the ability to day-walk in exchange for an honestly meaningless amount of strength. So long as they don't try to rip apart their grandpappy Ents they can physically dominate every other normal race in Arda.

 

[Drolefille]

This is where you get into Tolkien's theology - the idea that evil couldn't create was important to him theologically.

I am reading everything btw, just don't have as much to say

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

my unfinished Beowulf is somewhere....

If you could finish it in the next few days or so, and in a form such that it would replace Seamus Heaney's version as the most frequently used, that would be great. I don't anticipate any difficulties completing such an enormous project simply because I can't stand the fact that he begins his translation with "So." rather than "lo" or the usual translations for "hwæt".

Well I have swords.....if I could get away with it I would wear chain mail all day.

I sold most of my swords to pay of my then girlfriend or fiance's debt, alas, including my official Uruk-hai sword (complete with the hand of Sarumun plaque upon which it rested). I don't much like guns and own and train with them because these are the weapons of today, but it has been a long time since I trained to use swords. Knives absolutely (although little in the way of traditional martial arts; I took a few Escrima/Arnis seminars and one seminar devoted to the use of the karambit, but apart from some tricks with a balisong and some techniques with a karambit I'd never be able to perform under duress, all my edged-weapons training since I stopped training in traditional martial arts almost entirely have consisted of systems developed for military/paramilitary units, such as Krav Maga). I don't make much chain mail anymore either, and much of what I create remains unfinished or is intended just to be practice or experimental. Also, to make quality chain mail I not only have to cut and weave the rings using whatever pattern I do, but either solder or (and more traditionally) flatten and rivet. A mere coif requires hundreds or thousands of rings, and I no longer have the kind of time to spiral, cut, weave in (or flatten) and solder (or rivet) hundreds of 12 or 14 gauge steel wire rings.

Neither did he approve of Lewis' "apologetics": but I've always suspected Lewis' books on Christianity

As an apologist for the layperson (rather than the far more nuanced, subtle, and defensible works by those like Plantinga or Swinburne), he was and perhaps is unequaled. Kreeft would be the best modern comparison in my view. But it was C. S. Lewis who converted my father, Francis S. Collins, and many others. However, it was Tolkien (or at least in part) who converted Lewis, though he could never persuade Lewis to choose Catholicism.

One of my projects is comparing Barfield's thought to that of Nietzsche and Heidegger.

That sounds interesting indeed!

Wasn't that early in their friendship?

I can't recall, but worse yet I can't recall exactly my source. I thought it was in a Tolkien Studies paper but even though the journal is only published yearly there are too many to go through easily and none of the titles stand-out. It could have been Drout's lecture on fantasy literature, but I remember reading it not hearing it. This will bother me. Luckily, I am well-versed in the fine-art of finding out the sources for things virtually nobody could think interesting.

Probably, but I find annoying Frodo's odd wink at the end of Return of the King. What was that about?

No idea. I don't even recall it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Morgoth, even as the weakest of the Valar by the time he was fully corrupt

Was he? He began as the most powerful and greatest, and surely his corruption limited him as did his defeats, somewhat like Sauron (interestingly, at least to me, is the relationship between evil weakening and the inability to take form or shape that appears "fair" or beautiful). But can we really say he was the weakest?

After that, I believe Tolkien stated that Sauron had done what Morgoth couldn't, namely, he created something.

"For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." Sauron did not make the rings alone, and Morgoth created many things (such as his crown, excepting the Silmarils) and Grond. In fact, it is a mark of that which is evil in Tolkien that what they create is "mechanical". Saruman created what was more or less black-powder, Treebeard both laments and criticizes him as having a "mind of metal and wheels", and in the Scouring of the Shire one of the major differences is machinery and "factories". It is more whether Evil beings, not tools or works of craft, can be "evil in the beginning" or created by evil as evil.

The Ring in that regard is how Sauron eclipsed his master.

In what sense?

 

[Nietzsche]

Was he? He began as the most powerful and greatest, and surely his corruption limited him as did his defeats, somewhat like Sauron (interestingly, at least to me, is the relationship between evil weakening and the inability to take form or shape that appears "fair" or beautiful). But can we really say he was the weakest?

I want to say it was in one of the History of Middle Earth books or what have you where Tolkien said that Morgoth, by the end of his reign, had become the least of the Valar because of how much of his own power he fed into the world.

"For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." Sauron did not make the rings alone, and Morgoth created many things (such as his crown, excepting the Silmarils) and Grond. In fact, it is a mark of that which is evil in Tolkien that what they create is "mechanical". Saruman created what was more or less black-powder, Treebeard both laments and criticizes him as having a "mind of metal and wheels", and in the Scouring of the Shire one of the major differences is machinery and "factories". It is more whether Evil beings, not tools or works of craft, can be "evil in the beginning" or created by evil as evil.

Fair enough.

In what sense?

While Morgoth introduced Evil into the world, he did so by putting his essence into it, taking from his power. He had no way to recoup such a feat, and so while his influence will last until the End, he himself was weakened by it. Sauron on the other hand poured his essence into only a handful of things, and so could regain such power. This is just my personal belief, but I think that Sauron was able to turn the One Ring into an amplifier of power because it acts as a conduit for the power of not just the other rings, but of those in his thrall as well.

But in regards to why the act of making/creating the rings separates him from Morgoth and empowers him, it's simply that they were made as gifts. Underhanded and trapped, but gifts none the less. It is that remaining spark of good that, I feel, makes him Morgoth's superior.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I want to say it was in one of the History of Middle Earth books or what have you where Tolkien said that Morgoth, by the end of his reign, had become the least of the Valar because of how much of his own power he fed into the world.

What you said sounded familiar but I recall having a different interpretation. I was sort of hoping you would be the one to point to the exact quote. There are certainly multiple instances I can quote in which Morgoth's power is said to be lessened or diminished, but that is true also of Sauron, who made the ring and "let a greater part of his own former power pass into it". By creating the ring, it seems that Sauron did exactly what you say (and I do not disagree) happened with Morgoth, only in a far more specific, singular fashion.

 

[Nietzsche]

What you said sounded familiar but I recall having a different interpretation. I was sort of hoping you would be the one to point to the exact quote.

I am deeply sorry. It's been quite a while since I read through the "History" series. Though I think in this case since we both atleast have some recollection of it that it would be fair to say it is likely to be true. Of course, there's a good chance that Tolkien wrote it both ways in different parts of the text, with the contradictions helping it feel more like a genuine mythology.

There are certainly multiple instances I can quote in which Morgoth's power is said to be lessened or diminished, but that is true also of Sauron, who made the ring and "let a greater part of his own former power pass into it". By creating the ring, it seems that Sauron did exactly what you say (and I do not disagree) happened with Morgoth, only in a far more specific, singular fashion.

This is undoubtedly true, though my argument rests more on the idea that because Sauron was capable of doing things for others(his service of Morgoth, aiding in the forging of the lesser rings for the races) that makes him more powerful & capable. Morgoth just hated, Sauron had some redeeming qualities, and in the Tolkienverse where Good inherently triumphs over Evil, I think that is what makes him more dangerous. Then there's also that Sauron was more clever than Morgoth, as he could always recover the other rings(and as I stated draw from them and their wearers), while Morgoth would likely never be able to round up all the Evil he spawned. Sauron could recoup his losses, basically.

 

[DayRaven]

If you could finish it in the next few days or so, and in a form such that it would replace Seamus Heaney's version as the most frequently used, that would be great.

Could be a tall order. I believe I am only 400 or so lines into my translation and I'm committed to other work at present. I have attempted to stick as close as possible to Old English metre with it. Heaney's translation was never meant as a scholarly work (Michael Alexander's is probably the best on that score).

I don't make much chain mail anymore either, and much of what I create remains unfinished or is intended just to be practice or experimental.

Now smithing is something I will do one day. Making a pattern-welded blade would be great.

However, it was Tolkien (or at least in part) who converted Lewis, though he could never persuade Lewis to choose Catholicism.

Aye, the famous walk he took with Tolkien and...Hugo Dyson? I Often think Lewis would have been a pagan if paganism was as well known in his time. Christianity seemed to be too much effort for him: it wasn't where his heart really lay.

That sounds interesting indeed!

Well Barfield was more an anthroposophist than a Christian: more a disciple of Rudolf Steiner than Christ. Steiner was influenced by Nietzsche and Barfield and Heidegger published their magnum opus' Poetic Diction and Being and Time within a year of each other. I don't believe either man read the other but they had some similar ideas. To my knowledge Barfield is one of the few Anglo-Saxon philosophers not to fall headlong into logical positivism and engaged more with continental thought.

I thought it was in a Tolkien Studies paper

It could be one of Tom Shippey's books?

 

[Drolefille]

As an aside, I went to school where Shippey teaches. I missed his Tolkien class because he teaches it rarely. But got to see him speak and might have a signed book kicking around too.

 

[SomeRandom]

Holy crap I was like Obsessed with Peter Jackson's LotR lol!

Way back in 2001 I was but a little nipper of 10. And oh my was there a buzz about the upcoming fantasy movies?
Kids my age were all going gaga over Harry Potter. In fact in English class we actually read the first Harry Potter book. Then we watched the film as a sort of excursion/field trip.
Teenagers were gushing over the Lord of the Rings books, which had a sudden shoot of popularity. Even adults were excited for the upcoming film adaptation. The buzz and anticipation were palpable. In Australia the movie was rated M, which is I suppose a rough equivalent of PG 13, though probably not as strict. So I had to convince my parents that I was mature enough to handle it. Luckily my dad grew up on the books and didn't think twice about driving my friends and I to the cinema.
So as a little tyke, who had only really seen Disney/Pixar, Dreamworks and various sad Don Bluth movies, the Fellowship movie was the most epic and scary thing I had seen in my then short life. I think my mind was blown within the first 10 minutes haha! I've been in love ever since. =)

Hobbit movies are good and I like them. But my heart will always belong to the LotR trilogy.