XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid
In message
TT Arvind spoke these staves:
>
Overall I quite agree with just about everything you say --
> Jackson's done something very similar. He took the themes he
> thought were important, discarded the others, and reshaped the
> rest of the story to fit with the themes he'd selected.
And of course his taking up a theme he thought important doesn't mean
that he offers the same solution as Tolkien did. In many cases there
are at least elements that can be seen as a nod to Tolkien, but the
overall impression of the films is that they offer a different solution
from Tolkien's -- occasionally similar, but different, and occasionally
different in every way.
> Some will agree with his selections, others won't.
Aye.
I should possibly reiterate my insistence that Jackson (and any other
artist making an adaptation) /must/ be free to make his selections as
he sees fit, and to change them as he sees fit -- that is the nature of
the adaptation (here intended in the sense of 'a work of art that is
more or less loosely based on another work of art'). I do hold that
this freedom is imperative, and I have no cause to fault Jackson for
using that freedom.
This, of course, also means that I equally insist on my right to
dislike all or parts of his work because of his choices (my feelings
have, however, nothing to do with the quality of the films as
independent works of art).
> I'd say that those of us who particluarly like the world-view
> underlying Tolkien's work - as distinct from the plot or the
> 'feel' of Tolkien's constructed world
Just one thing -- for me the idea of the underlying world-view as
distinct from the 'feel' of the work doesn't make sense: the underlying
world-view is so strong an ingredient in the feel of the work that it
is not meaningful to me to attempt to understand the 'feeling of
Middle-earth' without including the underlying world-view. Tolkien's
personal theological and philosophical position strongly affects the
fabric of his world, and the fundamental rules of causation in Middle-
earth are defined by Tolkien's world-view.
No . . . I simply can't do it ;) Even where I disagree with Tolkien's
world-view, his position is still a strong ingredient without which it,
to me, cannot feel like Middle-earth.
> - are the ones who're least likely to be satisfied with Jackson's
> work, because it's the former that gets the shortest shrift.
Indeed ;)
I do suppose that the argument could be made that one can be a
'purist' (I still don't like that term) with respect to Tolkien and not
with Boccaccio, but also I think that there's a relevant distinction to
make here between some different positions:
1: No adaptation should ever change anything!!!!!
2: No adaptation of /Tolkien's work/ should ever change anything
3: Any adaption should preserve certain key elements of the original
work, including the underlying world-view.
4: As 3) but only applying for Tolkien's work.
The last two can of course be varied in a number of ways, but my
intention is here that certain key elements (i.e. not necessarily all
elements) of all 'dimensions' (themes, characters, plot etc.) should be
preserved. My personal modification of this position: that the world-
view offered by the adaptation should (as a matter of showing respect
for the original artist) nowhere directly contradict the world-view of
the original is, I think, a variation of the same general idea.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
