XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Weland  spoke these staves:   
   >   
      
      
      
   > I don't think you and I are very far here, Troels.   
      
   I think so, too (not that I am surprised).   
      
   > I certainly wouldn't claim as some have that Jackson improved   
   > the story as some have.   
      
   You know, I think it may depend on the context that one reads into   
   the story -- I can see how some people might come to think that there   
   are some elements where Jackson's LotR is an improvement of   
   Tolkien's.  The whole idea of medieval writers very often copying   
   stories from their predecessors but then updating / improving /   
   modifying them to suit the needs of themselves and their time seems   
   to me to also have some merit here.  It is as Shippey points out in   
   _Tolkien and the Study of his Sources_: Tolkien's context needs   
   explication in this age (and probably did already when _LotR_ was   
   published), and for those who would rather have a story that fits   
   neatly into their own contemporary (first half-decade of the third   
   milennium) context, I can see how Jackson's story might be seen as an   
   improvement.  In many ways Jackson's story justifies contemporary   
   currents in moral thought, whereas Tolkien's story in many ways are   
   bound, morally, in much earlier ages.   
      
   This is not to say that I think that Jackson has improved the story,   
   I most certainly do not ;-)  But I can see, as an intellectual   
   exercise removed from my emotional attachment to the story, where   
   such an opinion might arise.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Despite all that I have said, and probably will say again, about   
   Jackson's LotR films disappointing in their degree of faithfulness, I   
   do actually agree that the films should ultimately be judged by their   
   own qualities.  This does not, of course, mean that I think the   
   comparison is irrelevant -- I have learned quite a lot about what it   
   is about the books that attract me to them by discussing how the   
   films relate to Tolkien's original story, and I also think that it is   
   a convenient way to start out on an analysis of how well Jackson's   
   story succeeds as a fairy-story by Tolkien's definition (which can be   
   a relevant discussion regardless of whether Jackson intended to make   
   a fairy-story or not).  And of course I think that it is fair that   
   the comparative criticism is in the fore in a forum that is, after   
   all, dedicated to J.R.R. Tolkien and his books, and only considers   
   adaptations on-topic through their association to Tolkien's work.   
      
   This is no different from our discussions of Tolkien illustrators   
   such as Alan Lee, John Howe, Ted Nasmith, the brothers Hildebrandt,   
   Pauline Baynes, Cor Blok, Queen Margrethe II, etc. etc.  -- for each   
   of these I have seen both praise and condemnation, usually based on   
   how well the specific artist captures the sense of Tolkien's story   
   for the individual reader -- rarely have anyone tried to analyse and   
   evaluate such pictures as independent pieces of art.   
      
   I don't recall if we have ever discussed Tolkien music as such --   
   some has been mentioned, but I don't recall any discussion as such,   
   [*] but here I again suspect that the degree to which the composer   
   manages to capture the sense of Tolkien's work would be the main   
   topic when discussion the music in these groups.   
      
   So, while I do agree fully that the films should ultimately be judged   
   only on their own merits, I also do think that comparing them to the   
   book is a valid form of criticism in order to understand both stories   
   better, but also that it is reasonable that this approach becomes the   
   main focus in these groups.   
      
   [*] I only recall commenting that I think that both Swann and The   
       Tolkien Ensemble make an error in setting music to 'The Road   
       Goes Ever On' as it is specifically called a _walking_ song,   
       and their music lacks the firm rhythm that makes it good to   
       walk and sing to (and I've shortened many miles by song in my   
       carreer in scouting ;-)   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer    
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
       When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think,   
       also admit that some things are much more nearly certain   
       than others.   
    - Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)