New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Given that there's no class lines in any of our few regional accents here, accents are not a significant issue here. I had to wonder what was so very relevant about CT's accent--just a bit of character expose or was the interviewer trying to suggest some kind of elitism or snobbishness on CT's part? Not quite the same as "upper class twit" but a bit of shading of the man.

.

I don't get that impression. And Le Monde, which regards itself as the Rolls Royce of papers is unlikely to have an issue with elitism. I think it is a simple description. The writer uses dote in the same article in relation to JRRT's imagination so I don't get a negative connotation. I don't think the French have the reverse snobbery regarding accents either. In some ways the French are egalitarian but they won't compromise standards. It used to be that if you passed the Baccalaureat, whichever subjects you had taken you could be admitted to any degree course but the first year exams were notoriously tough so there was a high fall out rate. In French secondary schools if you didn't pass the year you had to take it again whereas here other in exceptional circumstances you stay with your year group regardless which means you could have secondary school pupils way in to their twenties!

[dreeness]

Please, do not use the Constitution as a crutch for your ignorant drivel. It's embarrassing.

(Please post more of your atavistic grunting. It's a hoot!)

Maybe you could just stop the vicious name-calling.

("Vicious"? Do you know that Zaentz tried to financially destroy John Fogerty?)

Smiley emoticons

(On an internet posting board?! The horror, the horror...)

an apparent lack of courtesy

(That's rich.)

If it is your intention to alienate yourself from the rest of us, then congratulations, you are well on your way to pariah status.

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author.

(Obvious twaddle. You better "move the goalposts", and hope nobody notices...)

If you have an actual example of such extraordinary documentation, research and editing of unpublished works of an author compiled by a single person, I'd like to hear it.

(And you did move the goalposts! Well done, padawan! If you hadn't done that, I might've said "What about Fargnoli's work on Joyce?", and then you would've said "Joyce who?" and chaos would surely reign.)

welch on the contract

(Yay, ethnic stereotypes!)

I'm a civil servant and a leftie and our Government is a bunch of neo-cons. I'm not about to give up my job though, as I need to feed the family

(Well yeah, but thats "survival vs utter ruin", not "tons of money vs tons more money".)

And no, I don't worship at the altar of Christopher Tolkien

(Well, apparently that makes you a Thought Criminal.)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by dreeness

("Vicious"? Do you know that Zaentz tried to financially destroy John Fogerty?)

I see no association with the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(On an internet posting board?! The horror, the horror...)

It isn't the mere use of emoticons that is the problem. The context in which you use them is inconsistent with the words around them.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(That's rich.)

I would posit you're the only one here who thinks so.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

Again with the discourtesy. I don't know what other forums you've lurked at, but here civil discourse and respect for others is highly valued.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Yay, ethnic stereotypes!)

She said "welch". Not quite the same as "welsh", and in any case, a common expression.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Well yeah, but thats "survival vs utter ruin", not "tons of money vs tons more money"

So you think the Estate is not entitled to proceeds from the movies, then? Do you have a reason, besides saying "CT was against the movies, so he shouldn't accept any of the profits from them?"

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Well, apparently that makes you a Thought Criminal.)

Once again, it isn't your opinion that is bothersome, it is the manner in which you express it.

[Lalwendë]

Please all calm down before davem's interesting thread gets closed.

Ta.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Way to evoke some serious menace, dude. Were you brandishing a plastic lightsaber when you typed that?)

I get the distinct impression that you would be a marvelous resource when we discuss the "Roast Mutton" chapter of The Hobbit.

Originally Posted by dreeness

(And you did move the goalposts! Well done, padawan! If you hadn't done that, I might've said "What about Fargnoli's work on Joyce?", and then you would've said "Joyce who?" and chaos would surely reign.)

Actually, I am aware of Fargnoli, as I am a fan of Joyce. But then, in your rush to cheap sarcasm, you have undercut any chance of sounding reasonable or serious in your replies.

I do have a copy of Fargnoli's James Joyce A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Life and Writings. It is well written, and a worthwhile reference book. It is not as enjoyable and irascible as Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, but definitely a book I have used. Yet I don't believe the "A to Z" or his other few thin volumes - much of it critiques and analyses of the works Joyce published within his lifetime - equates to an all-encompassing retrospective of the size and scope I was referring to, particularly in regards to unpublished material. Not even remotely close. In addition, nearly all of his work is co-authored by various other academics. But since it seems you are more interested in insults and imputations, you probably had little time to actually research your posts.

But please, try again.

[Legolas]

Thanks to those keeping it civil, and those reminders of proper forum conduct.

You may wish to review a couple of our policies and guidelines.

Accept the fact that others have different opinions. If you don’t agree, just state your own opinion; you don’t have to correct everyone else or argue until they agree with you.

Violators will be entombed.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Since you said this, of course, we've been fortunate enough to see Verlyn Flieger's talk at Return of the Ring, which calls into question that very aspect of Tolkien Senior's personality. I've been meaning ever since to start a thread to discuss my thoughts on that issue, but for now just a quick thought.

I haven't consulted my library yet, but it seems to me that the only aspects of French culture to which JRRT expressed any antipathy were specifically those which have been imposed on the English, either by the Normans (Woden's curse be upon them) or the aptly French-named bourgeoisie (in other words, precisely those people represented by the Sackville-Bagginses). It's easy to see how a product of industrial, no-nonsense Birmingham society might well heap a certain amount of disdain on the gratuitous and unnecessary use of French where a perfectly adequate English term exists, or the unjustifiable privilege given to French culture among the would-be arbiters of taste in this country. It's possible that Humphrey Carpenter overstated the case a little or misinterpreted what he discovered. In any case, I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I think CRT has earned the right to be cut a little slack by his father's ghost, having got such a hard time about military aircraft when he joined the R.A.F. I'm afraid I can't agree with JRRT about Spitfires.

I don't believe CT ever flew Spits. He did his primary training in Tiger Moths and his advanced training in Harvards, then transferred to the RN- I don't know what he flew in the FAA or whether he reached an operational squadron before demob, but I know he never qualled or flew off carriers, which rules out Seafires.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Being a bit of a plane buff, that information interests me a lot. It's a standard progression for mid-1940s pilot training, but interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I wasn't suggesting that CRT flew Spitfires; I was just selecting the type that's my personal point of departure from JRRT's comments in Letters #100. I had no knowledge of CRT's military service beyond the very basics until I read your post just now.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I don't believe CT ever flew Spits. He did his primary training in Tiger Moths and his advanced training in Harvards, then transferred to the RN- I don't know what he flew in the FAA or whether he reached an operational squadron before demob, but I know he never qualled or flew off carriers, which rules out Seafires.

Hurricanes might be a good possibility as well.
I know this is a bit far afield of this thread, but WWII aviation is an interest of mine too.

I always wondered if combat aviation might not have been in the back of JRRT's mind when he wrote of battles between Eagles and Dragons, and aerial elements strafing the ground, like Smaug did to Lake-town.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

CT began his training at No. 7 Air School (Tiger Moths), Kroonstad, Free State; after completing Elementary Flying Training there he moved on to No. 25 AS (Harvards) at Standerton, Transvaal for Service Flying Training.

Upon graduation and commissioning in March 1945 he was sent back to England, and subsequently was transferred to the FAA; I don't know why but if I had to guess it would be because with the surrender of Germany there was a perceived greater need for RN pilots vs. Japan. By this time in the war the RN was operating few British-built aircraft; aside from the Barracuda and a small number of Seafires most of its TOE was made up of USN types (Martlet/Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Avenger etc).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't get that impression. And Le Monde, which regards itself as the Rolls Royce of papers is unlikely to have an issue with elitism. I think it is a simple description. The writer uses dote in the same article in relation to JRRT's imagination so I don't get a negative connotation. I don't think the French have the reverse snobbery regarding accents either. In some ways the French are egalitarian but they won't compromise standards. It used to be that if you passed the Baccalaureat, whichever subjects you had taken you could be admitted to any degree course but the first year exams were notoriously tough so there was a high fall out rate. In French secondary schools if you didn't pass the year you had to take it again whereas here other in exceptional circumstances you stay with your year group regardless which means you could have secondary school pupils way in to their twenties!

Thanks for the analysis, Mith. I've always thought it a bit ironic that Tolkien's son moved to France, given Tolkien Sr.'s thoughts about the French.

Perhaps a reminder about the kind of etiquette followed here, from the Mod, Estelyn Telcontar, would be helpful:

Posting Guidelines

No flaming, no personal attacks. Please attempt to expand or develop the topic.

[Mithalwen]

Prejudices aren't always hereditary!!! And it isn't an insult to call someone an intellectual in France - and there is the warmth and the wine and the stringent privacy laws.. and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

and just an hour's flight away from the UK. Not an unprecedented choice for wealthy Brits, retiring to the South of France...

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour.

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

[davem]

An interesting documentary coming up on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 4th August The Hobbit, the Musical http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ld15z

Actor Billy Boyd, who played a hobbit in the films of The Lord Of The Rings, narrates the story of the first ever stage production of J.R.R.Tolkien's The Hobbit, at New College School in Oxford in 1967. It was written by Humphrey Carpenter, with music by composer, Paul Drayton, then music teacher at the school. We hear from the boys who performed it, who were choristers at the time and who are now eminent in the musical world: Choral conductor Simon Halsey, Martin Pickard Head of Music at Opera North, artist's agent Stephen Lumsden and composer Howard Goodall- who watched his older brother Ashley, now a marketing professional, perform. They talk about their memories and about Tolkien's presence in the audience on the last night.
The present-day Chamber choir at New College School sing some of the original songs, and we also play a never before broadcast recording of the production as it happened in 1967.

Yep - a High School musical of The Hobbit, written by Tolkien's biographer, which Tolkien attended. Carpenter spoke about it in a talk he gave after Tolkien's death. Carpenter went to discuss the project with Tolkien. While Tolkien apparently wasn't very enthusiastic about the idea, according to Carpenter he did suggest ideas for music for some of the songs & attended. Carpenter stated that Tolkien smiled when his original words were used but winced at any changes.

This other Radio 4 doc also looks fascinating Tolkien in Love http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l8qr2

Novelist Helen Cross, who herself lives in Birmingham, uncovers the story of the young J.R.R. Tolkien, falling in love with Edith Bratt. The love story of Beren and Luthien at the heart of his novel The Silmarillion was inspired by their relationship. They were both orphans, living in a boarding house in Edgbaston, Birmingham. The teenagers would talk out of their respective bedroom windows until dawn, and go for cycle rides to the Lickey Hills. However, when their romance was discovered, Tolkien's guardian, Father Francis Morgan, forbade Tolkien to see Edith until he came of age.Tolkien won an Exhibition to Oxford and Edith went to live in Cheltenham. But at midnight, as he turned 21, Tolkien wrote to Edith saying his feelings were unchanged. Unfortunately, in the intervening years, Edith had got engaged to someone else. Tolkien got on a train and she met him at Cheltenham station. They walked out to the nearby countryside and Tolkien persuaded her to break off her engagement and marry him instead. But the First World War was about to intervene, and Tolkien volunteered and was sent to the Somme.

Helen Cross visits key locations in Birmingham, Cheltenham and Oxford, to tell the story of Tolkien's young life and the love story at the heart of it.
Readings by David Warner as Tolkien and Ed Sear as the young Tolkien.

Both should be available via i player (radio programmes are usually available worldwide http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/b..._four/20120714 )

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I've often wondered if Mick Jagger might be a neighbour.

Going by the descriptions, I'm suspicious it's near where my old mucker's brother mistakenly bought an old house - well off the beaten track, wild boar everywhere which drove their dog insane to the point where she disappeared into the woods and went feral. It was all a failure because they realised Lancashire is much nicer

Ted Nasmith was also initially asked to be part of the movies but unfortunately at the time he faced some difficult family problems and couldn't participate.

I think, though, even with Lee's and Howe's work, there are still aspects of Nasmith's work in the movies.

Do you think you can pick out the Nasmith bits? I want to know now so I can go back and see if those scenes do look different. Because he has a completely different style to Lee, much more lurid - it works in his landscapes which are fabulous but I've never really got on with his figurative work because it moves towards the D&D style there.

[Mithalwen]

Don't suppose that Christopher Tolkien would have retired to Lancashire. He is a Yorkshireman by birth after all.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - if Jackson had gone for a straight action movie aimed at 15 - 25 year olds I think a great deal of the background material (most of the extra material in the extended editions) would have gone by the wayside (I think of Theodred's funeral & the heart-breaking scene between Elrond & Arwen in TT among other things). What Jackson certainly did was create a movie that would prove attractive to 15 -25 year olds as well as older people. There is too much stuff in the movies which wouldn't be there if Jackson had merely done what CT accuses him of.

Oh come on, you just don't like CJRT.

Originally Posted by davem

Its unlikely any movie of Lord of the Rings would have suited CT

I agree. But then I would not put CJRT alone like that - I think many people would not be happy with any movie. I know I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I wonder has he ever realised that the books are packed with action?

They certainly are, but they are not action-based books. I mean, if you have a book without action you're probably holding a botanical encyclopedia. Yet the books (LOTR at least) do not emphasize the action, and it happens slowly, and allows other things to happen too. You don't have 20 pages of descriptions of how Aragorn chops orcs in half, three at a time, at a rate of 60 orcs/minute. But you can't expect to sell a movie to 15-25 y/o's nowadays without it being like that - which brings me back to the beginning of this endless cycle.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What about this controversial statement?

I don't know. I'd feel guilty too if it was my father's work that I altered.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What would have Tolkien thought about an HBO/GoT kind of a settlement with something like six seasons fex. (one season to every book) aka. 60 hours of top class drama? Would that kind of possibility, if presented to them, have changed their minds from the LotR being "in principle" unsuited to transform into a visual dramatic form?

I think that it would not work this way either. I have not seen GOT, but I'd imagine it works well, because there is so much detail on everyday details, if you know what I mean. Like, in LOTR, you'd hardly expect to read about a trip to the privy because of an indigestion from last night's feast. And there is less detail in general - whereas GOT would describe a fight with all the moves and details and gore, LOTR would read "they fought and X won". The scope of LOTR makes it difficult to fit into x amount of hours, but its lack of details in the writing style makes it difficult to make a series without making it profane and ruined.

So I think that LOTR is, indeed, "on principle unsuited to transform into a visual form" as a whole. Parts have been done well in the movies, and there are many beautiful drawings, but I think you just can't reenact it from cover to cover and get it right. It's just like that. For lack of a better description - on principle.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Do you think you can pick out the Nasmith bits? I want to know now so I can go back and see if those scenes do look different. Because he has a completely different style to Lee, much more lurid - it works in his landscapes which are fabulous but I've never really got on with his figurative work because it moves towards the D&D style there.

It's the landscapes mainly. Check out Nasmith's "At the Falls" and his depictions of Minas Tirith, maybe the cliffs of Rivendell (not the buildings). That's what I can recall; it's been quite awhile since I watched the movies.

[davem]

This is a bit interesting in the context of CT's attitude to the movies - a statement he made immediately prior to the release of FotR http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tolki...0-6335205.html

He said: "My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form. On the other hand, I recognise that this is a debatable and complex question of art, and the suggestions that have been made that I 'disapprove' of the films, whatever their cinematic quality, event to the extent of thinking ill of those with whom I may differ, are wholly without foundation. I have never expressed or entertained any such feeling, which I would think altogether inappropriate and wrong-headed."

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

[Boromir88]

And another very well-written article linked below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4...iry-tales.html

Scroll to the end for the comments regarding the films, but my suggestion (particularly to dreeness) would be to read the entire article to understand the context and point I'm making.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this was before he saw the movie(s??) but its interesting nonetheless. Odd to state that he believes the work to be "peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" but then gets annoyed at the movies not being up to his requirements - if they are unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form then I assume that he would have been dissatisfied with them whatever. Which means his real issue is with the fact they were made at all rather than with what Jackson made of them.

Sometimes I suspect he's the oldest Hipster in town - "Tolkien films are so over."

But, he probably didn't think they would make good films even before they were made, either because (like a lot of us) he didn't realise just what modern SFX are capable of or he had an extremely fixed and strong vision in his own mind. Likely the latter. And thirteen years later, he is probably negatively affected by all of the hype surrounding them and the court case.

Anyone going through a court case like that is bound to hate those films, it's not a case of someone saying they hate them but secretly quite enjoying them. CT hates them, full stop. However, given all the hype and marketing, even if there had been no court case I think he would still hate the films.

Some of the hype I dislike, but overall, I think it's unfair to blame Alan Lee and John Howe for the visual images they created. It's as beautiful and thoughtful a vision that could have been created, seeing as they chose the two very best Tolkien visual artists to lead it, and they are two artists who took immense care over what they made. Blame Jackson for some bad script choices, yes, but not the artists.

I come back again to what the journalist said, and I think he/she is likely unaware of the work of these two men and the respect they did and still do show to Tolkien's work as fans themselves. It's really not fair to blame them if marketeers used their imagery afterwards for some of the cheesier products - better this than something lurid by the Hildebrant Brothers

Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising.

[Mithalwen]

It is odd because on the whole it is probably the aspect of the film he minds least. Alan Lee was requested to do the illustrations for the Children of Hurin which was a matter in which CRT presumably had a lot of clout. Noone can know exactly how Tolkien saw his world and he himself was the first to admit that he had not the skill to realise his vision in paint (though the more I read, the more I realise how skilled he was at doing it with words) but it seems that Alan Lee is, at least, the "least worst option" as far as CRT is concerned.

I am no great fan of the films and have never managed to sit through the second two in their entirety since seeing them in the cinema but I did enjoy the prop and costume exhibitions and got the feeling that those who designed and created them really cared about the source material. Where they fell down for me was that characterisation was always sacrificed to endless action scenes and cheap gags. But then I am not the desired demographic.

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

For me one ot the strengths of the Radio version - and indeed the wonderful Bernard Cribbins Jackanory reading that was my introduction to Middle Earth, was that it left more scope for the listener to engage with the work firing one's own imagination rather than dictating. Of course they are a lot more faithful to the original.

[Lalwendë]

I think the opinion on Lee and Howe is that of the journalist, who is a dreadful writer. The article is all background pre-amble and the journo's feelings about the topic, with very scanty input from CT. I would guess he spoke for longer than two minutes so where is the rest of it?

Anyway, here we are, I've found the page where Alan Lee expresses beautifully his feelings about illustrating Middle-earth:

In 1988, Alan was approached by J. R. R. Tolkien's publisher to create fifty new paintings for a lavish new edition of The Lord of the Rings, celebrating the first centenary of Tolkien's birth. This work took the artist two years to create and was published in 1991 — a stunning achievement which beautifully captures the unique magic of Tolkien's world. (More recently, he completed illustrations for The Hobbit, published earlier this year.)

Speaking about this massive undertaking, Alan says: "I first read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit when I was eighteen. It felt as though the author had taken every element I'd ever want in a story and woven them into one huge, seamless narrative; but more important, for me, Tolkien had created a place, a vast, beautiful, awesome landscape, which remained a resource long after the protagonists had finished their battles and gone their separate ways. In illustrating The Lord of the Rings I allowed the landscapes to predominate. In some of the scenes the characters are so small they are barely discernible. This suited my own inclinations and my wish to avoid, as much as possible, interfering with the pictures being built up in the reader's mind, which tends to be more closely focussed on characters and their inter-relationships. I felt my task lay in shadowing the heroes on their epic quest, often at a distance, closing in on them at times of heightened emotion but avoiding trying to re-create the dramatic highpoints of the text.

With The Hobbit, however, it didn't seem appropriate to keep such a distance, particularly from the hero himself. I don't think I've ever seen a drawing of a Hobbit which quite convinced me, and I don't know whether I've gotten any closer myself with my depictions of Bilbo. I'm fairly happy with the picture of him standing outside Bag End, before Gandalf arrives and turns his world upside-down, but I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons Hobbits are so quiet and elusive is to avoid the prying eyes of illustrators."

{dn: my paras there, to make it easier to read}

Linky to the Endicott Studio which he is part of, a loose group also included Neil Gaiman, Brian Froud and Charles Vess. One of the rare websites which can be called a thing of beauty.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

And while the sets costumes and props were my favourite aspect, I wish the Hobbit had been treated independently. Jackson's is not the only possible vision, Those of us who knew the books first have our own and that must be "with knobs on" for CRT. He can have absolutely no need of film to make Middle Earth come to life. I don't see an inconsistency with the opinions expressed. He didn't think the book suitable and was not pleasantly surprised.

The question of other visions than PJ's moves me to wonder what CT thought of the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi animated movies.

Personally, even though they are hardly high works of art, nor are they slavishly faithful to the books (to say the least ), I've got a soft spot in my heart for them, and do not harbor the same dislike I have for the live action treatments. I don't know if it's due to the fact that I saw them as a child and never took them seriously to begin with, or if it's more the lingering frustration that PJ got just enough right that his errors were simply that much more magnified and hard to forgive.

Did CT ever give an opinion of the earlier attempts?

[Mithalwen]

It always amuses me that they seem to favour the leather and bare leges Conan the Barbarian type look. Goodness knows what was going on in their psyches but it does seem rather impractical for nothern climes in winter. I know neither Boromir or Aragorn had mothers around for long to tell them they'd catch their death but really.. I suppose I should be grateful at least that Jackson's vision included trousers.