XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Weland  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > On 8/2/2011 3:15 AM, Steuard Jensen wrote:   
   >>   
      
      
      
   >> One thing I'll say about Jackson's movies: I can strongly   
   >> sympathize with those who claim that the characters aren't really   
   >> Tolkien's characters and the story they take part is isn't really   
   >> Tolkien's story, though I think that overstates the case.   
   [...]   
   >   
   > You know, medieval authors retold stories all the time.  They took   
   > previously told tales, reformed, reshaped, added a new twist, took   
   > something old out....Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde for example is   
   > not the first time the story was told nor the last.   
      
   Nor was Shakespeare's Hamlet ;-)  I can't say that it is something   
   that I have studied in any detail, but the few cases that I do know   
   of usually involve also adaptation of names (such as Amled to Hamlet   
   or Myrddin to Merlin [#] . . . or Baggins to Sækker).  Not that this   
   should, or could, hide the derivative nature -- often I think it was   
   no more than a phonological adaptation to the language of the writer   
   (I believe Hamlet is an example of this, as is the Atle / Atli of the   
   Niflung cycle).  My point, if indeed I have any ;), is that such   
   retellings often introduced quite a lot of changes (the whole Niflung   
   / Nibelungen cycle is another good example that I have tried to bring   
   into this discussion).   
      
   [#] This reminds me to also here convey my very warm recommendation   
   of Carl Phelpstead's /Tolkien and Wales/ -- this is indeed, as also   
   noted by Christina Scull, a rare pleasure to read.   
      
   > Jackson simply did the same thing with LoTR: just as it is   
   > Chaucer's Boethius for example so it is Jackson's retelling of   
   > LoTR, not Tolkien's LoTR.  Rather than measure the films on their   
   > faithfulness to Tolkien, the question is whether they are a good   
   > interpretation of the original text and well told.  My .01.   
      
   I suppose the question of what constitutes a 'good interpretation' is   
   no less contentious than the discussion of what constitutes a   
   'faithful adaptation'  ;-)   
      
   I will repeat here what I have said before: I do not blame Jackson   
   for interpreting Tolkien's book as he did.  It is not only his right,   
   but I believe that he has an artistic obligation to make the story he   
   tells his own.  When he nonethelss chooses to make his adaptation so   
   close (at a surface comparison) to the original, there will of course   
   be those, such as myself, who will find themselves unable to restrain   
   certain emotional reactions.  I can, of course, blame Jackson for his   
   part in creating expectations that he didn't intend to meet and whose   
   disappointment contributed to my negative emotional response.  This   
   can, however, not be much blame -- I really should have been wiser   
   :-/  Anyway, I can lean back and enjoy at least 90% of the full run   
   time of the extended versions, and I can actually get frustrated with   
   myself that the 5% that I dislike can so often be allowed to   
   overshadow all that which I like.   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer    
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
       It is the theory which decides what can be observed.   
    - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)