Christopher Tolkien to finish lost Middle Earth novel

[davem]

Middle column, about half way down the page.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....ainment/books/

And a bit from the Independent: http://comment.independent.co.uk/lea...cle2390841.ece

'pre-teen market'

[davem]

Originally Posted by Squatter

Anyway, since better people than I have pointed out the deficiencies of that article there remains little more for me to say than that Michael Drout promises to post on his site his own critique of Tolkien's style, which, since M.D. actually knows what he's talking about, should be worth a look. This pointless babble from News International I can do without: what isn't obvious or derivative in it is wrong.

Well, Drout's critique of Tolkien's style is up. http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2007/04...-style-at.html
Not sure I agree with him actually. I don't think the descriptions of landscape/nature are at all excessive, & am I the only one who actually likes the fox?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Better go buy HoME X & XI, as they are:
JRRT's last revised drafts of the Silm material;
written after the LotR, his craft only got better w/ age;
have much more material than the more 'remote' compressed Pre-LotR summaries CJRT favored in his SilM.

Erm- the vast bulk of the 1977 text is from the post-Lord of ther Rings period: the Grey Annals, the Annals of Aman, and the early- and late-50's phases of revision to the Quenta Silmarillion. CRT only reverted to earlier material when there simply wasn't anything later to work from.

CRT's "Silmlite" (as you sneeringly call it) also has structure and pacing, something the Professor had lost in his piecemeal rewritings. (This is also a major flaw in this forum's Billy Idol* Silmarillion project).

* More, more, more!

[Aiwendil]

CRT's "Silmlite" (as you sneeringly call it) also has structure and pacing, something the Professor had lost in his piecemeal rewritings.

Structure and pacing are subjective things.

[davem]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1649664.ece

Very positive - but what else would one expect by one of the authors of The Ring of Words?

[Lalwendë]

We had this one before?

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/b...cle2390834.ece

[Child of the 7th Age]

A friend of mine is the collection development specialist at a large library system. She already has the book in her hands. Apparently the publisher is already shipping out the book to some large library systems. This is the regular edition put out by Houghton Mifflin.

I've also read on another website that there is a strange variant that has already surfaced in a few samples of the regular edition....one section of the book is bound upside down. Some book people love those kind of strange quirks and try to search them down. Not me. I'll take one bound in the regular way so I can read it.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, Drout's critique of Tolkien's style is up. http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2007/04...-style-at.html
Not sure I agree with him actually. I don't think the descriptions of landscape/nature are at all excessive, & am I the only one who actually likes the fox?

I want to clown on this drout fellow who criticizes Tolkiens writing. He's not a member is he? If he's not does anyone mind if I find out who he is and then write a scathing denuciation?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

I want to clown on this drout fellow who criticizes Tolkiens writing. He's not a member is he? If he's not does anyone mind if I find out who he is and then write a scathing denuciation?

He's one of the best informed & most insightful Tolkien scholars around. He co-edits the journal Tolkien Studies & teaches university courses in Tolkien's work.

[davem]

Open Book Sunday 15th @ 4.00pm (available on the 'Listen again' option after broadcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/ope...openbook.shtml

& Loose Ends today @ 6.15 - interview with Alan Lee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/looseends.shtml

[Lalaith]

I think they're doing something on Front Row next week as well. (Friday evening radio 4 arts review)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, Drout's critique of Tolkien's style is up. http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2007/04...-style-at.html
Not sure I agree with him actually. I don't think the descriptions of landscape/nature are at all excessive, & am I the only one who actually likes the fox?

What's interesting about this entry by Drout is that his critique does not seem to support his general comment. He wonders if Tolkien could have achieved the same effect with fewer words--and then qualifies that wonder with the wonderfully inane comment from the Emperor in Amadeus. And then he quibbles over a few small points, but largely lauds the cited passages.

There would be two ways to consider the claim about excessive landscape description: the wordiness of particular passages (which he counters here) and the dwelling upon landscape so that it features constantly and continuously in the narrative. I suppose he tries to address this latter point when he compares Tolkien positively to Donaldson, but largely he does not addresss this claim.

So, his point that Tolkien's style is meant to create a mythic feel in modern language isn't, to my mind, drawn out well in this entry.

I really have to say, however, that I laud his efforts to bring Old English to a wider audience, especially with those podcasts. I haven't listened to any yet, but I recognise that setting up such a feature speaks highly to his efforts. Imagine setting up podcasts on the Downs, of passages from Tolkien's created languages.

[Lalwendë]

Drout's missed something - there is a strong tradition in British writing (and Art and Music) to bestow the very earth itself with a personality - Tolkien is following in the footsteps of others, and others would follow him. This is why we are given such lengthy descriptions of place, to establish Middle-earth itself as the primary character in this work, and it is the protagonist more than any single character is. Tolkien's works on Middle-earth are ensemble pieces in terms of 'human' characters, but the one constant that everyone fights so hard to dominate, control or save is the land itself. On many occasions it also heaves itself and reasserts its dominance (the sinking of Numenor, the storm on Caradhras, the fog on the Barrow Downs etc).

If you want to find other living landscapes look to Wordsworth, the Brontes, Thomas Hardy, Ted Hughes, Vaughan Williams, Turner, Constable, Goldsworthy...and if you want to read more about this look to Peter Ackroyd's Albion.

Remove the living landscape from Tolkien's work and you will be left with something very different, and with a very different, even meaningless, drive and purpose for all those who live there.

So Drout's missed a trick there. And not even every critic criticises the extensive writing about the land - Ackroyd acknowledges it for one!

And I can't let Drout's criticism of the 'archaic' language pass - a lot of it is anything but odd to me, as I'm used to people who often use 'archaic' English; growing up in Lancashire and living in Yorkshire you hear a lot of 'theeing' and 'thouing' every day, plus some very odd words. I knew right away what Attercops were. Thrawn is not far away from Thrawp. As someone points out in his blog, not everyone speaks the same 'brand' of English.

[Bêthberry]

I don't think he's really missed it, Lal. He's just been, I think, rather rhetorically clever at handling the complaint about landscape description.

After all, once he identifies the complaint about too much description as merely as matter of too many words--a strawman argument--he quite niftilly undercuts that with the Emperor's silly request. Then Drout compares two passages which for the most part he praises highly and even lauds them as suitable for a Hemingway style. He hoists the modern critics on their own ... um, criterion.

I think the one or two small points about wording which he objects to are really intended similarly in the strawman vein, to show that they can easily be dismissed, so that in the end he is able to claim that it is not easy to dismiss or critique Tolkien's style.

I suppose it must be his habit of lecturing--starting out with a, shall we say, hot air balloon, pumping it up for analysis, only to demonstrate how it can be deflated. A bit of a pedagogical trick I would say. But as I said, it leaves the larger question of the role and place of landscape description unexamined.

I'd agree that Tolkien certainly needs to be read alongside Hardy. I was ever so tickled to discover that 'kine', the Old English plural for cow, was still used in Yorkshire in Bronte's day.

Oh, and, I had always had the sense that 'thrawn', because it can also mean "contrary, peevish, perverse, sullen, unpleasant" as well as "twisted" and "crooked", was doing a little bit of foreshadowing for the ents.

But this, as I say, is likely Drout's habit of getting his students to refute his points, thereby actually defending the opposite of what he initially purports. I suppose I shall have to read more of his blog to say definitely though.

[davem]

On the Reviews section 'From the Publisher'

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Children-Hur...ion/0007246226

Found via Tolkien Gateway. VVV interesting...

And I've just got an email from Amazon that my copy of CoH has been despatched

EDIT:

What are we to make of Adam's comments here:

Alan was commissioned in 1990 to create the
first-ever illustrated edition of The Lord of the Rings to mark Tolkien's
Centenary, and his 50 watercolour paintings were to prove more influential
than anyone could possibly have imagined, as Alan then spent five years in
New Zealand working as conceptual designer with John Howe for the Peter
Jackson trilogy.

&

(It might be compared to a sort of literary
Director's Cut, the long version of the story assembled from all the best
footage available, though my father probably wouldn't welcome the
filmmaking comparison!)

Obviously the family are at war again over the movies

[Lalwendë]

Mine's been despatched too!

Bb - don't you think there are enough strawman type arguments though? I get a bit fed up with defending Tolkien myself! And no doubt people like Drout do too! I'm finding myself reading these reviews of CofH expecting to read the usual unpleasantness and the usual accusations and make the usual defences. The existence of critics like Ackroyd who can mention and use Tolkien as an example without feeling any need to make a snide aside suggests that there are some critics outside the Shippey/Flieger specialist academics who can accept Tolkien as a part of culture and give him some respect!

Liking that Adam Tolkien quote about his father and the films - very tongue in cheek about all the folk who amp up the rumours about family rifts over the films Maybe they'll be quiet now?