ATTN: JMS - Babylon 5 "SERIES 1" Bible
jrd...@my-deja.com
firstly, thanks for releasing the bible to us. I received my copy
today, and have just finished reading it - and it was a *great* read,
as was the treatment which I also received today. However, it brings
up 2 main points:
1) The bible refers out to a 200-page Arc document. Can you tell me if
this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
2) The bible covers *Season 1* only ! Does this mean we have 4 more of
these bibles to look forward to (Please say "yes").
Thanks in advance,
JRD.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jms at B5
>this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
Not a chance.
>2) The bible covers *Season 1* only ! Does this mean we have 4 more of
>these bibles to look forward to (Please say "yes").
>
No, since there were only minor modifications done to the thing for S2, and
there were no other changes done for S3-5.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
jrd...@my-deja.com
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> >1) The bible refers out to a 200-page Arc document. Can you tell me
if
> >this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
>
> Not a chance.
>
*sigh* - didn't really think you would, but it never hurts to ask !
> >2) The bible covers *Season 1* only ! Does this mean we have 4 more
of
> >these bibles to look forward to (Please say "yes").
> >
>
> No, since there were only minor modifications done to the thing for
S2, and
> there were no other changes done for S3-5.
>
OK - I guess I can understand that, too. Thanks for releasing the 1st
one - I *did* enjoy reading it ! I also found some of the differences
between the Treatment & the Bible to be *quite* interesting :-)
Regards,
JRD
Simon B. Paquet
>>1) The bible refers out to a 200-page Arc document. Can you tell me if
>>this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
>
>Not a chance.
Why not?
Do you think, that knowing the "true arc" would ruin the arc, that we've
seen, because then we would see how many adjustions you were required to
make?
Ciao
Simon
--
"How do you know the chosen ones? No greater love hath a man, then he
lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory,
not for fame, for one person in the dark, where no one will ever know
or see." (Babylon 5 - Comes The Inquisitor)
Werner Spahl
> >1) The bible refers out to a 200-page Arc document. Can you tell me if
> >this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
>
> Not a chance.
Why? Are you embarrassed of your original arc or why are you constantly
denying anything that would clear it up? I bet some people would like the
original arc better, other the final arc, so what is the problem here? I
don't think you'll have any chance to use it again after the "Crusade"
situation and even from ANH there are early drafts floating around and
nobody is laughing about them although they are inferior to the film.
Sorry, if this sounds aggressive, but I love B5 and just don't understand,
why you don't feed our curiosity of how it was planned in the beginning!
--
Werner Spahl (ui2...@sun1.lrz-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy!" Vorlonships
Brian Watson
> On 21 Nov 1999, Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > >1) The bible refers out to a 200-page Arc document. Can you tell me if
> > >this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
> >
> > Not a chance.
>
> Why? Are you embarrassed of your original arc or why are you constantly
> denying anything that would clear it up? I bet some people would like the
> original arc better, other the final arc, so what is the problem here? I
> don't think you'll have any chance to use it again after the "Crusade"
> situation and even from ANH there are early drafts floating around and
> nobody is laughing about them although they are inferior to the film.
> Sorry, if this sounds aggressive, but I love B5 and just don't understand,
> why you don't feed our curiosity of how it was planned in the beginning!
He's answered this question many times.. I think it was something like because
'what it [B5] was is what it was' Showing the original arc is pointless. It
wasn't shot that way, so it will not be that way.
Leslie Todd Masco
>He's answered this question many times.. I think it was something like because
>'what it [B5] was is what it was' Showing the original arc is pointless. It
>wasn't shot that way, so it will not be that way.
I, for one, would love to see that position reconsidered.
The purpose of this on-line dialogue, JMS has maintained, is to shed
light on the creative process of making TeeVee.
The topic that interests me most is how a Grand Vision adapts to and
survives contact with reality. Alas, those details seem to be off limits.
--
Todd Masco, CTO | CCVS payment processing software for
Hell's Kitchen Systems, Inc. | Linux & Unix systems: www.hks.net
Carl N. Hoff
could have been, its the whole creative process I'm interested in. I see the
200-page Arc document as a key link in the process. With out it I doubt that
the actual arc would have been as tight and as consistent as it was, even if it
was different. I believe that something like this 200-page document is a
necessary piece of the puzzle if something is ever going to come along of this
quality again.
A couple questions I'd love to see answered in relation to the above.
JMS how often would you refer to this 200 page document yourself? Did you
refer to it as much through out season 5 as you did the first season? Did you
have a similar document for Crusades or was Crusades included in the
original document in some form? Several weeks ago I remember you saying
something about the final fate of a few of the major characters. Does this
document contain this sort of information? If so then I do understand the
desire to not release it as some of the information in it you may still plan to
use down the road. If that is not the case though I also urge you to reconsider.
I think the details of the adaptation of the "Grand Vision" is the success story
behind Babylon 5. If the story hadn't adapted it wouldn't have survived. And
I think there may be other "Grand Visions" other there that would greatly benefit
from the kind of insight this document could provide.
Thanks for you time,
Carl Hoff
Jms at B5
*everything* that has ever been done for the show, and that I do have some
rights to privacy, and to keep some things for myself.
Second, the original document was such that is was random notes bunched
together by time and character, sometimes cross-referenced, sometimes not.
It's like an outline to oneself that is never supposed to make sense to someone
else because it was never *written* for someone else. They are my private
notes, to myself.
Where does anyone here have a problem with the concept of private notes?
Further still...the material contains bunches of quick premises for possible
stories or episodes, some used, some not, and if I let them out then those
not-used stories can never be used, and may end up elsewhere.
Lots of people seem to have this idea that the final result was widely
divergent from the original arc, hence this interest, and that proceeds from a
false premise. It really didn't change that much. Anyone looking at the S1
bible right now sees stuff that was laid out for the later seasons, and it was
pretty much all done...right down to telling writers not to get Lyta into a
relationship because she would eventually become starstruck by Byron, and I
didn't want anything else to get in the way of that.
So it really *isn't* that different. What the original material *is* is
scattergun, written in quick fragments or sudden thoughts dashed down in the
middle of the night or while working on something...it's in no condition to
release to anyone. I'd have to go through the material, reorganize it in a way
that would be all-chronological or all character, take out the stuff that I
would want to hold onto for future use...and then it wouldn't *be* the original
document anymore.
Whereas the overall approach was there from the git-go, the details were always
a work in progress, refining the ideas further and further during the five
years it took to sell the darned thing. Imagine five years of random notes as
the story coalesced, and you've got a pretty solid idea of the mess it looks
like.
>JMS how often would you refer to this 200 page document yourself? Did you
>refer to it as much through out season 5 as you did the first season?
Yeah, I referred to it constantly. Early on, to expedite things, since it is
such a clutter, I broke out each season at the very start of S1, putting each
episode on a card in a black binder, which had two-sided sheets that held 10
cards per side.
I did this for all five seasons before we ever shot a frame of film on S1.
That binder sat on the first shelf on the left in my office for five years.
People would come in and ask where the material was, and I'd explain that the
original material was in the triple-encrypted file...and they never knew that
the distillation of that material was sitting right behind them, close enough
to reach over and pull down off the shelf.
>Did you
>have a similar document for Crusades or was Crusades included in the
>original document in some form
Not as lengthy, no.
>Several weeks ago I remember you saying
>something about the final fate of a few of the major characters. Does this
>document contain this sort of information? If so then I do understand the
>desire to not release it
There's a lot of that in it as well, on the theory that even if I never used
it, *I* would have to know what it was, in terms of the history of the B5
universe and where it and the characters were all going.
The Nuclear Marine
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >1) The bible refers out to a 200-page Arc document. Can you tell me if
> >this is ever going to be released in any way, shape, or form.
>
> Not a chance.
>
I can imagine the chants and pickets outside the Babylonian Production
offices now:
"FREE THE ENCRYPTED PAGES 200!!!"
Seriously though, would an example of how the arc was done ever get
released, such as you've done with scripts and your reply to the TNT
execs about their memo
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
==============================
Parable: To tell the truth using fiction
Propaganda: To lie using the facts
GreyWulph
>because
>>'what it [B5] was is what it was' Showing the original arc is pointless.
>It
>>wasn't shot that way, so it will not be that way.
Then what is the point in having the B5 treatment for sale since many of its
contents (according to what I have read in this newsgroup) never made it into
the show?
>
>I, for one, would love to see that position reconsidered.
>
>The purpose of this on-line dialogue, JMS has maintained, is to shed
>light on the creative process of making TeeVee.
>
>The topic that interests me most is how a Grand Vision adapts to and
>survives contact with reality. Alas, those details seem to be off limits.
While I obviously respect JMS and his descision not to release the original
200+ pages of the story arc, I have to agree with the above statement that it
would be fascinating to see how the story WOULD have developed if circumstances
had been different. Its release would in no way diminish the achievement of the
Babylon 5 story since, as stated, it has been filmed and completed and nothing
could change that fact. People love "What If...?" stories (look at the
popularity of alternate history novels) and I for one would love to see how
things would have turned out differently, say if the character of Ivanova
didn't have to be written out, or if Sinclair had remained Commander of B5. I
also agree that it would be educational to see how shows are forced to adapt to
circumstances beyond their control.
JMS obviously has the right to release or not release the arc as he sees fit
and for his own reasons. However if the reason is simply because the story
didn't turn out that way so why bother, I would have to respectfully disagree.
People who like the story the way it is are free to just watch their tapes and
see the story for what it is and how it came out in fact. Nothing will change
that. The arc would simply allow those of us who wondered, "what would have
happened if the story had remained true to the original vision", to see how
things were forced to change.
I can see JMS's point that the story is the way it is, so why bother to tell
the way it could have been. In this case however, the authors vision had to be
altered to suit actors leaving, and other variables, and I would love to see
what the story would have been had these changes not been forced upon JMS.
Certain changes were obviously his choice as the story progressed but I am sure
he probably had to alter the story a bit to suit changes not of his doing
and/or liking. Thats only inevitable.
Werner Spahl
> Lots of people seem to have this idea that the final result was widely
> divergent from the original arc, hence this interest, and that proceeds from a
I think the interest arises mostly from the changes introduced by leaving
actors, which could never had been covered up in the original document...
> pretty much all done...right down to telling writers not to get Lyta into a
> relationship because she would eventually become starstruck by Byron, and I
Didn't you mention that originally Ivanova was to fall in love with Byron?
Is my memory failing me or was this an idea you got later and then had to
discard when CC left (anyway IMHO the Lyta story did fit better)?
I understand now, why you wont publish your notes, but could you please
make some comments to the most interresting speculations about the arc:
- Some people think that Sinclair/Sheridan could have been send back in
time to B4 in the last episode of B5. What do you think about this idea?
- Could Ivanova still have been the traitor on B5 before PT left and would
she be the one to deliver Sheridan to the EA instead of Garibaldi?
- You yourself stated, that Kosh demanded to die early, so could he have
gone with Sheridan to Z'ha'dum and play the role of Lorien there?
- Could the traitor=Ivanova/Talia relationship have been the reason for
the start of the telepath war instead of the Garibaldi/Byron/Lyta deal?
Neil Ottenstein
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> Second, the original document was such that is was random notes
bunched
> together by time and character, sometimes cross-referenced, sometimes
not.
> It's like an outline to oneself that is never supposed to make sense
to someone
> else because it was never *written* for someone else. They are my
private
> notes, to myself.
Thanks for explaining that. From previous discussions I think we were
under the impression that it was more than random private notes.
> Lots of people seem to have this idea that the final result was widely
> divergent from the original arc, hence this interest, and that
proceeds from a
> false premise. It really didn't change that much.
While not being wildly divergent may be easy to believe, it is still
hard to comprehend just how it would have been pulled off with Sinclair
the whole five seasons. The phase "the story -- which is very much the
story of Jeffrey Sinclair" still rings in our minds. Many things laid
out in the 1993 overview as found at
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/universe/five-year-overview.html
clearly did occur. Still, there are loads of questions of just how
close things would have played out.
>Early on, to expedite things, since it is such a clutter, I broke out
>each season at the very start of S1, putting each episode on a card in
>a black binder, which had two-sided sheets that held 10 cards per side.
>I did this for all five seasons before we ever shot a frame of film on
>S1.
Is this black binder information more suitable to be released? I bet it
would be fascinating to people.
While you can't be expected to release everything, that doesn't mean
that those of us who have been brought into the world you created can't
be endlessly fascinated and hope to see it all.
Neil Ottenstein
Carl N. Hoff
Let me first say thanks for the reply and the detailed answers to my
questions. I really appreciate the insight into the whole process of making
a TV show. I hope you didn't take my first post as a statement that you
were required to release *everything*. It was meant as only a request to
reconsider the release of this document, and then if and only if it didn't
contain material that you planed or could use latter. I respect your right
to privacy and personally think you've already gone above and beyond
what is expected. I know in the past you've freely shared personal
information that was of no relation to B5, your religious beliefs, etc.
So with the information on the 200 page document that I had at the
time I placed the first post, I didn't think it was unreasonable to request
that you at least reconsider its release. Your reply makes it clear to me
why you don't think its suitable for release and I'll respect that. But I
think you may be incorrect about the reason for the interest, at least
in my case. I know you've adapted the original vision to accommodate
actors leaving and other things that were outside your control. You've
talked about the built in trap doors on a number of occasions, but
usually in very general terms. I was just curious and wanted to see the
specifics of one example. The information probably won't benefit me
greatly as I don't have the aspiration to create my own TV show, but
as I said in my first post I'm sure there are other "Grand Visions" out there
that I'd love to see, that would benefit from seeing specific examples of
the adaptation process. IMHO it is exactly this process that B5 excelled
at and which throws such a big monkey wrench into other shows, and I
think its all owed to planning as indicated by the existence of the 200
page document itself.
Sorry if I stepped on any toes (that's not my intent),
Carl
Jms at B5 wrote:
> First, you have to understand that there is no requirement that I release
> *everything* that has ever been done for the show, and that I do have some
> rights to privacy, and to keep some things for myself.
>
> Second, the original document was such that is was random notes bunched
> together by time and character, sometimes cross-referenced, sometimes not.
> It's like an outline to oneself that is never supposed to make sense to someone
> else because it was never *written* for someone else. They are my private
> notes, to myself.
>
> Where does anyone here have a problem with the concept of private notes?
>
> Further still...the material contains bunches of quick premises for possible
> stories or episodes, some used, some not, and if I let them out then those
> not-used stories can never be used, and may end up elsewhere.
>
> Lots of people seem to have this idea that the final result was widely
> divergent from the original arc, hence this interest, and that proceeds from a
> false premise. It really didn't change that much. Anyone looking at the S1
> bible right now sees stuff that was laid out for the later seasons, and it was
> pretty much all done...right down to telling writers not to get Lyta into a
> relationship because she would eventually become starstruck by Byron, and I
> didn't want anything else to get in the way of that.
>
> So it really *isn't* that different. What the original material *is* is
> scattergun, written in quick fragments or sudden thoughts dashed down in the
> middle of the night or while working on something...it's in no condition to
> release to anyone. I'd have to go through the material, reorganize it in a way
> that would be all-chronological or all character, take out the stuff that I
> would want to hold onto for future use...and then it wouldn't *be* the original
> document anymore.
>
> Whereas the overall approach was there from the git-go, the details were always
> a work in progress, refining the ideas further and further during the five
> years it took to sell the darned thing. Imagine five years of random notes as
> the story coalesced, and you've got a pretty solid idea of the mess it looks
> like.
>
> >JMS how often would you refer to this 200 page document yourself? Did you
> >refer to it as much through out season 5 as you did the first season?
>
> Yeah, I referred to it constantly. Early on, to expedite things, since it is
> such a clutter, I broke out each season at the very start of S1, putting each
> episode on a card in a black binder, which had two-sided sheets that held 10
> cards per side.
>
> I did this for all five seasons before we ever shot a frame of film on S1.
>
> That binder sat on the first shelf on the left in my office for five years.
> People would come in and ask where the material was, and I'd explain that the
> original material was in the triple-encrypted file...and they never knew that
> the distillation of that material was sitting right behind them, close enough
> to reach over and pull down off the shelf.
>
> >Did you
> >have a similar document for Crusades or was Crusades included in the
> >original document in some form
>
> Not as lengthy, no.
>
> >Several weeks ago I remember you saying
> >something about the final fate of a few of the major characters. Does this
> >document contain this sort of information? If so then I do understand the
> >desire to not release it
>
> There's a lot of that in it as well, on the theory that even if I never used
> it, *I* would have to know what it was, in terms of the history of the B5
> universe and where it and the characters were all going.
>
> jms
>
John W. Kennedy
> Where does anyone here have a problem with the concept of private notes?
I, for one, have no problem.
But, Joe, I would ask this of you. Keep the thing around, and let it be
released someday -- 50 years after your death, if you like. If no one
then cares about B5 anymore, why, then, so be it. But if there still is
an interest, scholars will be grateful.
Remember, no matter how much you or others say, "It's just television,"
the fact remains that B5 opened up artistic (I use the word in its most
neutral sense) territories that were hitherto unexplored. Maybe B5
isn't "King Lear" or "Emma" -- but it's at least "Gorbadoc" or
"Pamela". You've said that you want to educate us about television --
but don't forget that you also have an opportunity to educate people
about the elusive creative process, as well. (And the people who Don't
Get why you have a problem with translating "Crusade" into prose make it
clear that education in that department is needed. I tried to tell
them, myself, weeks ago, but....)
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
MJB
> On 23 Nov 1999, Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > Lots of people seem to have this idea that the final result was widely
> > divergent from the original arc, hence this interest, and that proceeds from a
>
> I think the interest arises mostly from the changes introduced by leaving
> actors, which could never had been covered up in the original document...
>
> > pretty much all done...right down to telling writers not to get Lyta into a
> > relationship because she would eventually become starstruck by Byron, and I
>
> Didn't you mention that originally Ivanova was to fall in love with Byron?
> Is my memory failing me or was this an idea you got later and then had to
> discard when CC left (anyway IMHO the Lyta story did fit better)?
Yes he said that, but he also said that Lyta would have an unrequited love
for Byron (hence, "starstruck"). I guess that's the problem with trying
to remember -- we each remember parts and pieces and lose the whole.
[ snipped other comments]
Leslie Todd Masco
>Where does anyone here have a problem with the concept of private notes?
Nowhere... I don't think anybody is saying you don't have a *right* to
keep details private. I think we're just lamenting your choice to
exercise that right, even though we respect that decision.
>Lots of people seem to have this idea that the final result was widely
>divergent from the original arc, hence this interest, and that proceeds from a
>false premise. It really didn't change that much.
I would bet that some of the differences that aren't that big to you
are pretty big to others. Where you see the overall structure, with
characters taking others' roles as convenience and circumstance dictated,
we see characters we have grown to love or despise having their lives
go in different directions. For example, I always hated Talia (largely
because of the actress). I loved it when and how she was nuked.
Obviously that wasn't part of the original arc, since *she* wasn't
part of the original arc.
Of course, that's just a guess.
Similarly, I always wonder whether Garibaldi was supposed to betray
Sinclair instead of Sheridan. That, IMO, would have been *much* more
powerful, given Garibaldi's history and closeness with Sinclair. It
helps that I loved Sinclair and never particularly liked Sheridan,
thinking that he was a "Tin plated dictator with delusions of God-
hood."
Please don't feel hounded by fans' desire to know what other
possibilities might have been - the fact that we care (either
positively or negatively) about these characters is a reflection upon
the quality of your storytelling.
Jms at B5
>released someday -- 50 years after your death, if you like.
You must understand: if you go through all of my files, for all the scripts and
stories I have written, you will find ONLY final drafts. I routinely destroy
ALL of my annotated drafts, rough drafts, preliminary drafts and most notes. I
think that, in the end, what has to stand or fall is the work, and one doesn't
let out one's rough drafts or unfinished work.
A while back, there was a long and heated debate between me and some other
online folks on the issue of unfinished work and annotated drafts; I'm
foursquare against them being released posthumously. This, to me, falls under
the same heading.
All the rough-draft stories, all the MSW scripts, and all my B5 scripts with my
handwritten edits, changes, annotations, deletions, and revisions...are mulch.
As they should be.
One does not go out in public only partially dressed.
Mac Breck
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991123200431...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> First, you have to understand that there is no requirement that I release
> *everything* that has ever been done for the show, and that I do have some
> rights to privacy, and to keep some things for myself.
>
> Second, the original document was such that is was random notes bunched
> together by time and character, sometimes cross-referenced, sometimes not.
> It's like an outline to oneself that is never supposed to make sense to
someone
> else because it was never *written* for someone else. They are my private
> notes, to myself.
>
*I* don't. However, you have to realize that where Babylon 5 and Crusade
are concerned, our appetites are pretty much insatiable.
Mac
Richard Drushel
: A while back, there was a long and heated debate between me and some other
: online folks on the issue of unfinished work and annotated drafts; I'm
: foursquare against them being released posthumously. This, to me, falls under
: the same heading.
: All the rough-draft stories, all the MSW scripts, and all my B5 scripts with my
: handwritten edits, changes, annotations, deletions, and revisions...are mulch.
: As they should be.
: One does not go out in public only partially dressed.
All I can say is, I'm glad that Christopher Tolkien thinks
differently. Better JRRT's bits and pieces of The Silmarillion and the
other unfinished works than nothing at all. My opinion as both a fan
*and* a scholar.
*Rich*
--
Richard F. Drushel, Ph.D. | "Aplysia californica" is your taxonomic
Department of Biology, Slug Division | nomenclature. / A slug, by any other
Case Western Reserve University | name, is still a slug by nature.
Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7080 U.S.A. | -- apologies to Data, "Ode to Spot"
Michael J. Hennebry
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>First, you have to understand that there is no requirement that I release
>*everything* that has ever been done for the show, and that I do have some
>rights to privacy, and to keep some things for myself.
>
>Second, the original document was such that is was random notes bunched
>together by time and character, sometimes cross-referenced, sometimes not.
>It's like an outline to oneself that is never supposed to make sense to someone
>else because it was never *written* for someone else. They are my private
>notes, to myself.
>
>Where does anyone here have a problem with the concept of private notes?
No one here has a problem with the concept of private notes.
They just didn't think that asking nice would be a problem in itself.
You have no more obligation to release them that to publish the series
bible.
>Further still...the material contains bunches of quick premises for possible
>stories or episodes, some used, some not, and if I let them out then those
>not-used stories can never be used, and may end up elsewhere.
A good reason for making deletions.
>So it really *isn't* that different. What the original material *is* is
>scattergun, written in quick fragments or sudden thoughts dashed down in the
>middle of the night or while working on something...it's in no condition to
>release to anyone. I'd have to go through the material, reorganize it in a way
>that would be all-chronological or all character, take out the stuff that I
>would want to hold onto for future use...and then it wouldn't *be* the original
>document anymore.
Don't do that. If you publish it, leave it in the order you wrote it.
If folks want a look at the creative process and the creative process
looks like a plate of spagetti, let them look at something that looks
like a plate of spagetti.
BTW I don't understand why you could not re-use an idea that you had already
published. You earlier mentioned year-long difficulties caused by a story
idea in a newsgroup article by someone else. I can understand that that
would cause a problem (though not why it lasted a year). That you couldn't
re-use your own ideas seems a bit strange.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I'm just an old country doctor." -- Bones
Jeffrey MacHott
wrote:
>Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> spake unto the ether:
>
>: A while back, there was a long and heated debate between me and some other
>: online folks on the issue of unfinished work and annotated drafts; I'm
>: foursquare against them being released posthumously. This, to me, falls under
>: the same heading.
>
>: All the rough-draft stories, all the MSW scripts, and all my B5 scripts with my
>: handwritten edits, changes, annotations, deletions, and revisions...are mulch.
>: As they should be.
>
>: One does not go out in public only partially dressed.
>
> All I can say is, I'm glad that Christopher Tolkien thinks
>differently. Better JRRT's bits and pieces of The Silmarillion and the
>other unfinished works than nothing at all. My opinion as both a fan
>*and* a scholar.
>
If you want a good example of why you shouldn't release people's
writing notes after they're dead, take a look at what Frank Herbert's
talentless son and Keven Anderson did to DUNE in House Atreides :*/
> *Rich*
>--
>Richard F. Drushel, Ph.D. | "Aplysia californica" is your taxonomic
>Department of Biology, Slug Division | nomenclature. / A slug, by any other
>Case Western Reserve University | name, is still a slug by nature.
>Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7080 U.S.A. | -- apologies to Data, "Ode to Spot"
>
--Ragu Leader
<Fer-de-Lance> boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. <Fer-de-Lance> oh, sorry, I thought I was disconnected. :) --From the wise ramblings of Delance in #Wing-commander, Thanksgiving, 1999
Trek Barnes
Richard Drushel <dru...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:81jg9s$ap8$1...@plonk.apk.net...
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> spake unto the ether:
>
> : A while back, there was a long and heated debate between me and some
other
> : online folks on the issue of unfinished work and annotated drafts; I'm
> : foursquare against them being released posthumously. This, to me, falls
under
> : the same heading.
>
> : All the rough-draft stories, all the MSW scripts, and all my B5 scripts
with my
> : handwritten edits, changes, annotations, deletions, and revisions...are
mulch.
> : As they should be.
>
> : One does not go out in public only partially dressed.
>
> All I can say is, I'm glad that Christopher Tolkien thinks
> differently. Better JRRT's bits and pieces of The Silmarillion and the
> other unfinished works than nothing at all. My opinion as both a fan
> *and* a scholar.
>
we do.
flet...@post.queensu.ca
> If you want a good example of why you shouldn't release people's
> writing notes after they're dead, take a look at what Frank Herbert's
> talentless son and Keven Anderson did to DUNE in House Atreides :*/
created from his notes.
Now, if they'd released the notes instead, that'd be a different story.
Ae.
Jacob Corbin
> Now, if they'd released the notes instead, that'd be a different
> story.
Yep. A *good* one. Not that big daddy Frank was the master of
consistent quality himself...
Justin Bacon
<ask...@mediaone.net> writes:
>Ahh, but there we *didn't* have the finshed work (The Simarillion.). Here,
>we do.
I think you need to re-analyze the Tolkien corpus.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
(Jeffrey MacHott) writes:
>If you want a good example of why you shouldn't release people's
>writing notes after they're dead, take a look at what Frank Herbert's
>talentless son and Keven Anderson did to DUNE in House Atreides :*/
No, think it through. If they had released just the *notes*, then DUNE HOUSE
ATREIDES would never be a marketable book.
I, personally, would be far more fascinated with Herbert's actual notes than
this hack job of literary bullshit.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Michael Harper
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >But, Joe, I would ask this of you. Keep the thing around, and let it be
> >released someday -- 50 years after your death, if you like.
>
> You must understand: if you go through all of my files, for all the scripts and
> stories I have written, you will find ONLY final drafts. I routinely destroy
> ALL of my annotated drafts, rough drafts, preliminary drafts and most notes. I
> think that, in the end, what has to stand or fall is the work, and one doesn't
> let out one's rough drafts or unfinished work.
>
> A while back, there was a long and heated debate between me and some other
> online folks on the issue of unfinished work and annotated drafts; I'm
> foursquare against them being released posthumously. This, to me, falls under
> the same heading.
>
> All the rough-draft stories, all the MSW scripts, and all my B5 scripts with my
> handwritten edits, changes, annotations, deletions, and revisions...are mulch.
> As they should be.
>
> One does not go out in public only partially dressed.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
My kinda guy. Joe, I agree with you completely. I suspect that if Heinlein had
known what would be done after his death, he'd have destroyed all his old papers as
well.
You go, boy.
jmh
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <7Gz%3.16733$Fd.3...@news2.jacksonville.net>, "Trek Barnes"
> <ask...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> >Ahh, but there we *didn't* have the finshed work (The Simarillion.). Here,
> >we do.
>
> I think you need to re-analyze the Tolkien corpus.
I think he means that we don't have Tolkien's final text of "The
Silmarillion", but only an attempt (1977) by Christopher Tolkien at
creating one, an attempt which he has said that he now feels to have
been a mistake, and which he believes the "History of Middle Earth"
volumes should supersede.
Gharlane of Eddore
In reference to the destruction of working material at the death of
the writer, which practice JMS espouses,
In <38446514...@wnm.net> Michael Harper
<bahi...@wnm.net> writes:
>
> My kinda guy. Joe, I agree with you completely. I suspect that if Heinlein
> had known what would be done after his death, he'd have destroyed all his
> old papers as well.
>
( First, keep your line lengths down to about 72 characters. Other people
may wish to read what you post. )
Now... Please don't put opinions en voce RAH.
Please don't make presumptions. Heinlein sold just about everything he
ever wrote, with the exception of one unlamented story which *was* burned
(at his specific request.)
Examples:
The original manuscripts of "STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND," "THE PUPPET
MASTERS," and "PODKAYNE OF MARS" were all done during his peak writing
years, and were *good* work, well worth reading; but they had to be
massively cut to length and editorial requirements.
Heinlein insisted on doing his *OWN* length cutting and editing, and
was one of the most superb superfluous-material snippers who ever lived;
while he didn't think much of Hemingway's life style or preoccupations,
he used him as a model for the achievement of lean, mean, prose.
( And don't forget the USNA class in "Order Writing" that he credits
with most of his prose skill and felicity of communication. )
RAH wrote the very best material of which he was capable, and then
length-cut to order, doing a wonderful job of preserving the original
concept and presentation. The man was a master of his craft.
But that does *NOT* mean we should have vaporized the original drafts
or unpublished full-length versions at his death; the original full-
length versions of "STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND" and "THE PUPPET MASTERS"
are now available in print, and yes, they *ARE* better work, and more
fun to read.
RAH's original ending for "PODKAYNE OF MARS" was changed at editorial
request; the original is more dramatically satisfying, and better art.
( Note that the original publication of "THE PUPPET MASTERS" was hugely
mucked about with by an editor with an ego problem and no great
mastery of narrative writing, sans RAH's consent or approval. If
RAH had walked under a bus, and his unpublished work shredded, as
per your advice, we would never have *seen* the original longer work
that made it to book publication, or later on, the very first version,
which was even better, and vastly more rewarding to customers (and
hence to publishers.) )
In short, your stance does not merit respect. If a writer doesn't want
his working material in print, it is *his* responsibility to burn it as
he goes, or make specific provision in his will. Otherwise, it's fair
game for estate publication or persual by researchers, *and* for
discussion and analysis.
And that's the way it should be.
=====================================================================
|| ||
|| "Bother," said Pooh. "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes ||
|| and lock phasers on the Heffalump. Piglet, meet me in ||
|| transporter room three." ||
|| ||
=====================================================================
Jon Niehof
> of "The Silmarillion", but only an attempt (1977) by
> Christopher Tolkien at creating one, an attempt which he
> has said that he now feels to have been a mistake, and
> which he believes the "History of Middle Earth" volumes
> should supersede.
Silmarillion" books are just that, whereas The Shape of Arda
(I refuse to use the title they decided to slap on it...) is
actually a very early form. The published work represents
the most complete picture of the 1st Age in the initial
incarnation (developed from the text in SoA), whereas
Morgoth's Ring, etc. are a rather different coneption.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
Trying is the first step to failure
--H. Simpson
Justin Bacon
Niehof <jnie...@Calvin.EDU> writes:
>Except they don't, not really. The "Later
>Silmarillion" books are just that, whereas The Shape of Arda
>(I refuse to use the title they decided to slap on it...) is
>actually a very early form. The published work represents
>the most complete picture of the 1st Age in the initial
>incarnation (developed from the text in SoA), whereas
>Morgoth's Ring, etc. are a rather different coneption.
You've managed to completely miss the underlying point: The material which
Christopher assembled for THE SILMARILLION was part of an evolving process. To
only look at the latest results of that process is to ignore the fact that it
is the process itself which was an important part of Tolkien's creation.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Jon Niehof
> You've managed to completely miss the underlying point:
> The material which Christopher assembled for THE
> SILMARILLION was part of an evolving process. To only
> look at the latest results of that process is to ignore
> the fact that it is the process itself which was an
> important part of Tolkien's creation.
Mmmm. Okay, I guess we're actually agreeing here. I
certainly don't recommend Silmarillion in isolation from the
rest for a full study (although it is a little bit of an
easier read than some of the HoME, certainly flows
better). But I do think that if we had only the History of
Middle Earth volumes without the Silmarillion we'd be
missing something--namely, a rough
"middle-evolution" picture of the First Age.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
My love is medicine
Feeds the sick
Heals the poor
Turns up the volume on the blind
--Over the Rhine
John W. Kennedy
>
> > I think he means that we don't have Tolkien's final text
> > of "The Silmarillion", but only an attempt (1977) by
> > Christopher Tolkien at creating one, an attempt which he
> > has said that he now feels to have been a mistake, and
> > should supersede.
> Except they don't, not really. The "Later
> Silmarillion" books are just that, whereas The Shape of Arda
> (I refuse to use the title they decided to slap on it...) is
> actually a very early form. The published work represents
> the most complete picture of the 1st Age in the initial
> incarnation (developed from the text in SoA), whereas
But that is simply not true. "The Book of Lost Tales" is both initial
and complete -- the _only_ complete text, in fact. But it is radically
different from the creator's concept of the material at the time he was
writing "The Lord of the Rings".
The 1977 "Silmarillion" is, by CJRT's own account, a bastard text of his
own construction.