The Hobbit in July 2007?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You are missing the point. This is a college level textbook. Adams wasn't being dismissive per se, rather, in a general summation of English literature from Beowulf to the present a small blurb is all that Tolkien warrants. Unfortunate perhaps, but generally academics would not share in your placing LotR with The Iliad, Beowulf or the Völuspá.

Yes, but I could list a bunch of academics like Tom Shippey, Michael Drout, Verlyn Flieger & Jane Chance (who is a also a professor but whose books on Tolkien aren't actually very good) who would hold the opposite opinion & consider Tolkien to be a major literary figure, & all of whom are contributors to the journal Tolkien Studies. So I wouldn't give too much credit to someone like Adams. There are Tolkien courses at a number of universities on both sides of the atlantic, so I don't think you can hold up Adams as 'typical'. In fact, as time goes by I suspect that he will be part of an incresingly tiny minority of critics who fail to understand or appreciate Tolkien's work.

Please, do try to pay attention. You needn't dig anyone up to stone them back into their graves. I was referring to Garnett's review of The Once and Future King as a 'curious classic' because that is the manner in which most critics view books in the fantasy genre. I know you don't care really what they think, and I wasn't agreeing with them; you merely stated "We need to get some perspective here", and I offered some perspective.

But I really think a great deal could be gained by throwing stones at them, & if I'm prepared to spend some of my precious spare time doing so I can't see why that's a problem.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But PJ was an LotR fan from childhood

That is simply untrue. PR flack bullhockety. Garden manure spread around to quell readers' suspicions. PJ read the book one time, on a train ride at 17.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

In fact, as time goes by I suspect that he will be part of an incresingly tiny minority of critics who fail to understand or appreciate Tolkien's work.

While the cynic in me doubts the reach of reason in academia or the literary world in general, I do applaud your enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by davem

But I really think a great deal could be gained by throwing stones at them, & if I'm prepared to spend some of my precious spare time doing so I can't see why that's a problem.

Well, Garnett is dead, so stoning him will not be much of a challenge; however, Adams, although in his 70's might prove a little bit more of a difficult target...just give him a bit of a running start.

Oh, and you'd might like to read Adams critique of the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works in general in a 1997 review in the New York Review of Books (Adams was a contributor to the Review from 1962 to 1995). I am sure it will lead you to start amassing a goodly amount of throwing stones for your new hobby...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8321

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by William

PJ read the book one time, on a train ride at 17.

Okay, I admit I thought him a bit younger, but nevertheless 17 is still a child. A very old child, but still technically a child. And it only takes one read to capture a fan...

[Morthoron]

Another thought, all this wrangling between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema et al, and whether or not the Hobbit will be ever filmed concerns the vast accretion of wealth (or the withholding of said filthy lucre as the case maybe) that The Hobbit is certain to amass. Isn't it a supreme irony that no one would have ever gotten the film rights to Tolkien's works if he had not been financially strapped and sold them out of desperation rather than conviction? It would seem the One Ring was not destroyed but melted down and minted into coinage for capitalistic endeavors.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Oh, and you'd might like to read Adams critique of the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works in general in a 1997 review in the New York Review of Books (Adams was a contributor to the Review from 1962 to 1995). I am sure it will lead you to start amassing a goodly amount of throwing stones for your new hobby...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8321

What a bone to give the stone throwers! That is a fascinating journey through Tolkien's texts and I'm sure it would even deserve its own thread for analysis.

For now, I am much entertained by this passage.

Originally Posted by Robert M. Adams

Above all, Tolkien has a fascination with names for their own sake that will probably seem excessive to anyone whose favorite light reading is not the first book of Chronicles.

>>>It came to pass [Chapter Ten informs us] during the second age of the captivity of Melkor that Dwarves came over the Blue Mountains of Ered Luin into Beleriand. Themselves they named Khazâd, but the Sindar called them Naugrim, the Stunted People, and Gonnhirrim, Masters of Stone. Far to the east were the most ancient dwellings of the Naugrim, but they had delved for themselves great halls and mansions, after the manner of their kind, in the eastern side of Ered Luin; and those cities were named in their own tongue Gabilgathol and Tumunzahar. To the north of the great height of Mount Dolmed was Gabilgathol, which the Elves interpreted in their tongue Belegost, that is Mickleburg; and southward was delved Tumunzahar, by the Elves named Nogrod, the Hollowbold. Greatest of all the mansions of the Dwarves was Khazad-dûm, the Dwarrowdelf, Hadhodrond in the Elvish tongue, that was afterwards in the days of its darkness called Moria; but it was far off in the Mountains of Mist beyond the wide leagues of Eriador, and to the Eldar came but as a name and a rumour from the words of the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains.<<<


Three or four names for each city of the Dwarves represent only a very small beginning; there is also an intricate genealogy of Elves to be mastered, a complete pantheon of Valar, various groups and combinations of men, plus a whole spectrum of special creatures—Ungoliant, Carcharoth, sundry Balrogs, Glaurungs, Maiars, and Periannath, the latter being, as it happens, Hobbits.


Such a barricade of grotesque and semi-pronounceable names is no small obstacle to a venturesome reader; but in fact the names are also a good part of the book's reward. Like the portmanteau words of "Jabberwocky" or the deeper and more violent conglomerates of Finnegans Wake, many of them sink into the mind, disintegrating the smooth and accepted conventions of everyday English to memorable effect. The dragon Smaug, the wicked and menacing Nazgûl, the Ents of Fangorn—such rich and mouthy names keep the mind busy tangling and untangling their phonemes. But when one has to keep Elendë (which is a name of Eldamar) distinct from Elendil the son of Amandil, and both distinct from Elendur the son of Isildur, while Elrond, Elros, Eluréd, and Elurín hover in the neighborhood, the effect is an irritating blur.

Adams is clearly an astute enough and venturesome reader to tap into the very fountainhead of Tolkien's creativity, his philology. Whatever else Adams says, he is certainly to be commended for this.

By the by, this thread is entitled The Hobbit in July 2007. We've got two weeks left.

[davem]

Well, he should try reading some Icelandic sagas, where every other character's name seems to be a variation on 'Thor***' (Thorfinn, Thorgil, Thorolf, etc!)

[Elladan and Elrohir]

This thread has seen some interesting discussion (both civil and uncivil), but it has veered woefully off-topic. I would love to see the discussion continue on another thread, but it doesn't really have any place here.

In the meantime, I think it quite likely that there will in fact NOT be a Hobbit movie released in July 2007. There's my feeble attempt to get back on topic.

[narfforc]

Your attempt is not feeble Elladan and Elrohir, it is full of power, let he (she) that hath understanding read thy powerful runes. The Hobbit MOVIE!!!!! is something that the vast majority of us wish for, as much as I like The Sagas and all the other nicey things introduced herewith, we are not discussing the Making of Their Movie.

[davem]

Bit of a side-track, & I've pointed up this issue before but this could affect TH. Previously there have been calls for images of smoking to be banned in movies but now we see:

The Disney Studio has pledged to remove smoking from its family-oriented films.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6916293.stm

"We hope it's the beginning of a domino effect as other studios come into line," he told the BBC News website.

US anti-tobacco organisation The American Legacy Foundation said the announcement was "a good, solid step".

So, even though TH is not to be made by Disney, is this move is likely to be followed by other studios?

Could we really see Bilbo sitting outside Bag End sans Pipe? Personally I can't imagine Bilbo (let alone Gandalf!!!) without his pipe

Or maybe pipes will be excluded from the ban?

Mr Iger made the promise in a letter to US congressman Edward Markey. DVDs that show cigarettes will also carry anti-smoking announcements, he added.

Still, as long as they don't start banning all those cool guns & big explosions ...