XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: giles@poetic.com   
      
   On 8/20/2011 5:13 AM, Troels Forchhammer wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   I don't think you and I are very far here, Troels.  I certainly wouldn't   
   claim as some have that Jackson improved the story as some have.  But   
   while there are aspects of Jackson's Tolkien Lotr are disappointing and   
   even frustrating, there is little reason to measure the films by degree   
   of faithfulness rather than in their own right.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)