Aragorn Movie casting
Katherine Inskip
The following is snipped directly from TheOneRing.net
>http://www.theonering.net/Aragorn Casting!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Xoanon @ 9:53 pm CST
>
> THEONERING.NET EXCLUSIVE!!!!
>
> This is honest to goodness folks
> 10000% percent reliable. If I am
> wrong I will honestly give up
> the web business. I just
> recieved this from a very
> reliable source!!! Stuart
> Townsend will play Aragorn!!!
>
>
>
>
>http://www.theonering.net/movie/cast/townsend.html
>
> Stuart Townsend
>
> For more information about Stuart Townsend, please
>visit the Internet Movie Database. You will find biography
>and other important information there.
>
>
> Role
> Aragorn, Dunedain chieftain of Arnor
>
>
> Noteable Past Roles
> Tom in Under the Skin (1997)
> Jez in Shooting Fish (1997)
> Victor Kelly in Resurrection Man (1998)
What do all think of this?
Andrew Carol
Inskip <k...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
******* lots of snipping below *******
> The following is snipped directly from TheOneRing.net
>
> >http://www.theonering.net/Aragorn Casting!!!!!!!!!!
> >http://www.theonering.net/movie/cast/townsend.html
> >
> > Stuart Townsend
> >
> > Role
> > Aragorn, Dunedain chieftain of Arnor
> What do all think of this?
I think almost all of the casting has been really good, but this one
I'm not so sure about. I always thought of Aragorn as looking a bit
older than Townsend looks and looking a bit grimer. I think of Aragorn
as actually being much older than he looks, but still looking
perhaps early 40's
But everything else looks so good from this production that I'll
give them the benefit of the doubt.
---- Andrew
--
Andrew Carol xaec...@ix.netcom.com
(Remove leading x from my address to e-mail)
jtba...@my-deja.com
Keanu Reeves didn't get the part.
Jeff
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.990730141815.18469A-100000@grumpy>,
Katherine Inskip <k...@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> The following is snipped directly from TheOneRing.net
>
> >http://www.theonering.net/Aragorn Casting!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Xoanon @ 9:53 pm CST
> >
> > THEONERING.NET EXCLUSIVE!!!!
> >
> > This is honest to goodness folks
> > 10000% percent reliable. If I am
> > wrong I will honestly give up
> > the web business. I just
> > recieved this from a very
> > reliable source!!! Stuart
> > Townsend will play Aragorn!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >http://www.theonering.net/movie/cast/townsend.html
> >
> > Stuart Townsend
> >
> > For more information about Stuart Townsend,
please
> >visit the Internet Movie Database. You will find biography
> >and other important information there.
> >
> >
> > Role
> > Aragorn, Dunedain chieftain of Arnor
> >
> >
> > Noteable Past Roles
> > Tom in Under the Skin (1997)
> > Jez in Shooting Fish (1997)
> > Victor Kelly in Resurrection Man (1998)
>
> What do all think of this?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Burnsides
and saw the pictures of Townsend, the very first things that came to my mind
was "man, i dont think hes old enough." Now, he certainly has the Aragorn
like features that i would look for but not the age. Aragorn had afterall,
been through some really tuff shit up untill his part in the company of the
ring. So, he wouldnt actually look like someone who has just walked outside
for the first time. Infact, I always pictured Aragorn looking a little bit
older than what he actually was.
Burnsides
Stellaluna
I sort of agree. I think that maybe the age issue could be taken care
of with makeup. He does need a more weather-beaten look to him.
Stellaluna
---------------------
| Head in the clouds, |
| feet in a puddle. |
---------------------
Remove "2" to e-mail.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:rq3qai$0$37nspbj$3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Infact, I always pictured Aragorn looking a little bit
> older than what he actually was.
Heh. If Aragorn looked a bit older than he actually was
he'd have needed a cane. Aragorn looked much YOUNGER than
he actually was. He was nearly Denethor's age.
I've seen the pictures of the guy they cast and I think he
is a good fit given proper makeup and such. Aragorn should
look roguish and weather-beaten at Bree, but regal and fair
at Cormallen. I've seen pictures of this guy that are
roguish and fair... the weather-beaten can be done with
makeup and regal... well, that'll depend on how good an
actor he is.
Andrea Wojtewicz
Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
<7nsvd0$g4h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Neil Carr
young. Ah well...
Angus McBride's rendition is the closest representation to what I've
envisoned Aragorn for the last two decades of reading LotR.
WATTO
non important character just about to die (I "think" he could do that).
Watto
Andrea Wojtewicz <and...@tm.net> a écrit dans le message :
BRno3.1396$061....@monger.newsread.com...
WATTO
Andrea Wojtewicz <and...@tm.net> a écrit dans le message : Fmro3.1511$061....@monger.newsread.com...WATTO wrote in message ...
>Who? Mel "I've-no-talent-whatsoever-but-I-look-good" Gibson?? Maybe as a
>non important character just about to die (I "think" he could do that).
>
>
>Watto
you obviously never saw "galipoli"
WATTO
Was there a rumor to tht effect? I agree he did not fit the part, he has
what I believe to be a perfect elven face. He simply needs pointed ears.
Watto
<jtba...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message :
7ntanc$6kk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Bread
>
> Who? Mel "I've-no-talent-whatsoever-but-I-look-good" Gibson?? Maybe as a
> non important character just about to die (I "think" he could do that).
I don't think Mel is all that bad. He lot a bad moves early on (Mad Max,
and then his laughable attempt at Hamlet), but I liked his recent
performance in "Payback"
Varnast
"Conrad Dunkerson" <con...@planet.net> wrote:
> Burnsides <ha...@mounet.com> wrote in message
> news:rq3qai$0$37nspbj$3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Infact, I always pictured Aragorn looking a little bit
> > older than what he actually was.
>
> Heh. If Aragorn looked a bit older than he actually was
> he'd have needed a cane. Aragorn looked much YOUNGER than
> he actually was. He was nearly Denethor's age.
Nearly Denethor's age, yeah. There's less than a year between them,
Aragorn was eighty-seven at the time LotR is set. From this, we can
assume Eowyn prefers the more mature kind of man.
Mind you, Aragorn obviously prefers older women - Arwen clocks in at
well over 2000 years old.
"Don't worry, it's only a flesh wound - oh."
Stephen Sinclair
wrote:
>i still say mel gibson
>
To short and expensive.
Steve
Wellington, New Zealand
Douglas Henderson
Theoden, Jo Anderson for Eowyn, etc.
Re Aragon, who can play hidden nobility well?
BTW I thought MG's hamlet not bad, like Bruce Willis, he is a
second-rate actor who's not afraid to take chances.
Bread
>
> I'd say Allan Rickman for Aragon, Branagh for Boromir, John Cromwell for
> Theoden, Jo Anderson for Eowyn, etc.
Alan Rickman for Saruman, baby! Ok, he's a little young, but can you
imagine him and McKellen going at it? JRR would have been proud!
McREsq
Legloas and Glorfindel are blond, right?
I agree that he seems a bit young for Aragorn. What the hell, as long as he
can act let makeup do the rest.
Russ
Andrea Wojtewicz
he would make an excellent aragorn!
Douglas Henderson wrote in message <37A2881F...@mindspring.com>...
>I'd say Allan Rickman for Aragon, Branagh for Boromir, John Cromwell for
>Theoden, Jo Anderson for Eowyn, etc.
>
Aris Katsaris
WATTO <br...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:sato3.1047$vw1....@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>He simply needs pointed ears.
>
Aris Katsaris
Jouni Karhu
Legolas has a dark hair.
I really can't understand why so many people want actors who are in
most cases well over 50 to play Aragorn, a physically demanding role
if there ever was one. Now there is a chance that we will actually see
longer than one second cuts of Aragorn fighting . . . :P
When you think about an actor, think about how they look today, and
how old they are today, not what they looked like all those years back
in your favorite movie.
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Cian
Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > Legolas has a dark hair.
>
> Is this from the books? I don't believe Tolkien ever wrote about the colour
> of his hair one way or another, but I always imagined him blonde.
From Appendix F Tolkien describes his Eldar:
"They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save
in the golden house of Finarfin; ..."
Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this
general rule -- Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel,
Glorfindel, and the silver haired Celeborn.
Tolkien describes Legolas' head at least, in "The Great River": (albeit the
scene is at night-- but I like the visual image it conjures up so I'm including
it anyway :-))
"Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night,
seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars
that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind."
Cheers,
Cian
Aris Katsaris
Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:37a41f7a...@news.cc.tut.fi...
> mcr...@aol.com (McREsq) wrote:
> >He sorta looks like a Noldor. I could see him as Elrond or one of his
sons.
> >Legloas and Glorfindel are blond, right?
> >
> >I agree that he seems a bit young for Aragorn. What the hell, as long as
he
> >can act let makeup do the rest.
>
Is this from the books? I don't believe Tolkien ever wrote about the colour
of his hair one way or another, but I always imagined him blonde.
Aris Katsaris
Kingasaurus
"They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save
in the golden house of Finarfin; ..."
Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this
general rule -- Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel,
Glorfindel, and the silver haired Celeborn.>>
You mean like blond Thranduil, Legolas' father? Hmmm.....
<<"Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the
night,
seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars
that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind.">>>
Yeah, but as you already mentioned, the scene is at night. Very ambiguous.
Look, if these issues WEREN'T ambiguous, we wouldn't still be arguing about
them 26 years after the author's death.
-Pete
" I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi
Aris Katsaris
Cian <wald...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:37A4F9C6...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > > Legolas has a dark hair.
> >
> > Is this from the books? I don't believe Tolkien ever wrote about the
colour
> > of his hair one way or another, but I always imagined him blonde.
>
>
> "They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark,
save
> in the golden house of Finarfin; ..."
This is a mistake. As seen from 'History in Middle Earth' Tolkien originally
intended this passage to describe the *Noldor* alone, who are dark-hair
except in the golden house of Finarfin. After all all of the Vanyar are also
golden-haired.
We have no evidence about the hair-color of the Teleri, Sindar or Silvan. If
anything Sindar elves like Thingol, Celeborn and Cindar had silver hair.
> Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this
> general rule
Was Thranduil a Sinda, or a Silvan elf? I can't remember.
> -- Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel,
> Glorfindel, and the silver haired Celeborn.
>
> Tolkien describes Legolas' head at least, in "The Great River": (albeit
the
> scene is at night-- but I like the visual image it conjures up so I'm
including
> it anyway :-))
>
> "Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the
night,
> seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white
stars
> that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind."
Everyone's head is dark during the night. Ambiguous.
Aris Katsaris
Öjevind Lång
Aris Katsaris hath written:
>Cian <wald...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:37A4F9C6...@mediaone.net...
>>
>>
>> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>>
>> > > Legolas has a dark hair.
>> >
<snip>
>
>This is a mistake. As seen from 'History in Middle Earth' Tolkien
originally
>intended this passage to describe the *Noldor* alone, who are dark-hair
>except in the golden house of Finarfin. After all all of the Vanyar are
also
>golden-haired.
>
>We have no evidence about the hair-color of the Teleri, Sindar or Silvan.
If
>anything Sindar elves like Thingol, Celeborn and Cindar had silver hair.
>
>> Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this
>> general rule
>
>Was Thranduil a Sinda, or a Silvan elf? I can't remember.
Thranduil was a Sinda.
Öjevind
Cian
Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > From Appendix F Tolkien describes his Eldar:
> >
> > "They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark,
> save
> > in the golden house of Finarfin; ..."
>
> This is a mistake. As seen from 'History in Middle Earth' Tolkien originally
> intended this passage to describe the *Noldor* alone, who are dark-hair
> except in the golden house of Finarfin. After all all of the Vanyar are also
> golden-haired.
The mistake that Christopher points out is rather -- that when his father
"carefully remodeled the passage" (ie. to include all the Eldar) his father
apparently forgot the hair-colour of the -Vanyar-, while also noting that that
detail may have not been worked out at the time. Legolas is not Vanyarin of
course, so that possible error does not apply I think.
> We have no evidence about the hair-color of the Teleri, Sindar or Silvan. If
> anything Sindar elves like Thingol, Celeborn and Cindar had silver hair.
But that is evidence in itself -- some of the Telerin nobles had silver hair.
Also and again, we see Tolkien pointing out the exception to the rule, as he
does with the golden strain within the Noldor. (Finarfin --through Vanyarin
genes) I think you mean Cirdan there at the end, but his 'appearance' is another
matter.
> Was Thranduil a Sinda, or a Silvan elf? I can't remember.
Sinda.
> > that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind."
>
> Everyone's head is dark during the night. Ambiguous.
>
> Aris Katsaris
Yes, that's why I included my "however" line with smiley face. I just liked the
quote.
Cheers,
Cian
Cian
Kingasaurus wrote: --
> .>>Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel, Glorfindel, and
> the silver haired Celeborn.
>
> You mean like blond Thranduil, Legolas' father? Hmmm.....
True, Thranduil is described as such in the Hobbit, but I am inclined to follow
what I view as pertinent description in LOTR's and later writings (check out the
colour description of some of the dwarf's beards in the Hobbit!) If Thranduil is a
blond Sindarin king then so be it, but I personally think that Thranduil's 'do'
had very little to do with Tolkien's later reasoning of why a select number of the
Eldar are blond.
1) The Vanyar are a golden haired people, and are the -least numerous- of the
kindreds.
2) The Noldor are a dark haired people, except where noted (and why- Vanyarin
influence)
3) Some Telerin nobles have silver hair -- another noted exception to what must be
dark hair considering that the Eldar have dark hair as a rule, excepting the just
mentioned Vanyarin influence.
IMo, basically this implies a preponderance of dark-haired Eldar, especially of
those dwelling in M-earth; and I can't think why Tolkien should make obvious note
of the Vanyarin and Telerin attributes in LOTR's, but leave out yet another
supposed Sindarin exception to the rule in his main Elven character, the mighty
Legolas.
Cheers,
Cian
Kingasaurus
follow
what I view as pertinent description in LOTR's and later writings (check out
the
colour description of some of the dwarf's beards in the Hobbit!) If Thranduil
is a
blond Sindarin king then so be it, but I personally think that Thranduil's
'do'
had very little to do with Tolkien's later reasoning of why a select number of
the
Maybe, but then we get into the extremely sticky and impossible-to-resolve
argument which asks: Which parts of "The Hobbit" can safely be considered
canonical, and which parts can we throw out as early literary anachronisms
devoutly to be ignored - and WHY?
Is it safe to assume that the "stone giants" are one of Bilbo's fairy-tale
embellishments to his memoirs, while his acts of slaying the spiders in
Mirkwood with Sting "actually" happened? Where is that particular line in the
sand drawn? Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? Even though JRR
originally wrote the Hobbit distinct from his early Sil (and in a children's
style), he later was forced to "fit" the Hobbit into his universe, as is shown
by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR,
while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. So....which
"fairy-tale"-sounding details would go, and which details would stay, if he had
ever - hypothetically - engaged in such a rewrite?
Sticky, indeed....
Jeff Blanks
> Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess?
Side note: It's been noted that the gene for blond hair in humans is
recessive. What would that mean for his kids?
Personally, I've noted that _most_ of the Elves whose hair JRRT mentions
at all are blonds--as if he's got a thing for blondness or something.
--
"Americans never solve their problems;
they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana
Kingasaurus
Side note: It's been noted that the gene for blond hair in humans is
recessive. What would that mean for his kids? >>
Depends. What color is his wife's hair? :)
Gav
people, compared to Denethor's watered down heritage. I'm also quite sure
that the comment is made that Denethor had visibly aged (due to use of the
Palantir).
He certainly no longer looked young or Denethor would easily have recognised
him as Thorongil (sp?).
My choice for the role would be a slimmer Liam Neeson. Not my favourite
actor but I feel he looks the part. (ala Rob Roy)
Gav.
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7nsvd0> Heh. If Aragorn looked a bit older than he actually was
Gav
Of the two I know who I think is the better actor.
Gav.
WATTO <br...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:sato3.1047$vw1....@wagner.videotron.net...
>
db
Jeff Blanks wrote in message ...
>Personally, I've noted that _most_ of the Elves whose hair JRRT mentions
>at all are blonds--as if he's got a thing for blondness or something.
Don't we all?
db
Alyn Miller
Stallone (ack gag).
A. Miller
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> Burnsides <ha...@mounet.com> wrote in message
> news:rq3qai$0$37nspbj$3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Infact, I always pictured Aragorn looking a little bit
> > older than what he actually was.
>
> Heh. If Aragorn looked a bit older than he actually was
> he'd have needed a cane. Aragorn looked much YOUNGER than
> he actually was. He was nearly Denethor's age.
>
Conrad Dunkerson
news:37a7b...@mercury.planet.net.au...
> He certainly no longer looked young or Denethor would
> easily have recognised him as Thorongil (sp?).
My recollection is that Denethor never actually SAW him.
Denethor was either dead or at least preparing to die by
the time Aragorn arrived in Gondor. Denethor DID see the
black ships in the Palantir, but I think it is unlikely
Sauron would allow him to see who was on those ships.
There are also some indications that Denethor DID know
about Aragorn and who he was - both by ancestry and their
shared history.
Andreas Jaeger
wrote:
>He [Aragorn] certainly no longer looked young or Denethor would
>easily have recognised him as Thorongil (sp?).
Did they see each other at all then? From my memory (don't have the
books at hand) I remember Denethor going crazy and committing suicide
*before* Aragorn arrived in Minas Tirith.
OTOH, Denethor *did* know that somebody was coming to claim the crown,
and that it was a ranger from the North. It is not unlikely that he
gained this information from his Parantir, so it *might* be that he
knew it was Aragorn alias Thorongil.
John Whelan
On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote:
> ----True, Thranduil is described as such in the Hobbit, but I am
> inclined to follow what I view as pertinent description in LOTR's and
> later writings (check out the colour description of some of the dwarf's
> beards in the Hobbit!) If Thranduil is a blond Sindarin king then so be
> it, but I personally think that Thranduil's 'do' had very little to do
> with Tolkien's later reasoning of why a select number of the Eldar are
> blond.-----
> Maybe, but then we get into the extremely sticky and
> impossible-to-resolve argument which asks: Which parts of "The Hobbit"
> can safely be considered canonical, and which parts can we throw out as
> early literary anachronisms devoutly to be ignored - and WHY?
I'm not sure I can give an answer because I'm not sure I agree with the
question. I'm not sure what you mean by "canonical". Clearly, all of the
accounts given in LOTR are intended to be translations of accounts that
were written by hobbits. We may assume that they are all substantially
accurate and wholly honest, but perhaps not entirely verbatim descriptions
of dialogue. Some of the accounts are based on first-person experience,
and others are based on research by these same hobbits interviewing the
non-hobbit participants in the War of the Ring. The events in "The
Hobbit" are supposed to be based on Bilbo's own writings, and this, in and
of itself, is enough to explain certain deviations of style and attitude
from the later books. The account of the riddle-game from the 1937
edition has been explained and incorporated into the ongoing story, even
though it is now considered false. But this lie was, as is pointed out in
LOTR, very uncharacteristic of Bilbo, and so there is no reason to assume
that anything else in "The Hobbit" (or anything at all in the revised
edition) is wrong or inaccurate.
> Is it safe to assume that the "stone giants" are one of Bilbo's fairy-tale
> embellishments to his memoirs,
Not at all. Bilbo never says he saw giants in the flesh. He heard their
voices and saw the rocks they hurled. He probably heard Gandalf or the
Dwarves talk about these forces as though they were personal beings. It
is already established and confirmed by LOTR that the Misty Mountains are
haunted by powerful spirits of various sorts. Remeber Caradras? Bilbo's
account is entirely honest, and not an "embelishment". It's just that
what these "giants" actually were is uncertain, and subject to
interpretation.
Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that there were
some really big guys up there hurling rocks.
> while his acts of slaying the spiders in
> Mirkwood with Sting "actually" happened?
Of course they did. Besides which, those spiders are referred to in LOTR
as being the lesser descendents of Shellob.
> Where is that particular line in the
> sand drawn?
We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.
Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate,
except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other
minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition.
> Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess?
Clearly, he was blond.
> Even though JRR
> originally wrote the Hobbit distinct from his early Sil (and in a children's
> style), he later was forced to "fit" the Hobbit into his universe, as is shown
> by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
> Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR,
> while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor.
I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the
book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as
reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.
> So....which "fairy-tale"-sounding details would go, and which details
> would stay, if he had ever - hypothetically - engaged in such a rewrite?
He already engaged in a rewrite. What he chose to revise are already a
matter of record. AFAIK, only the riddle-game was significantly revised,
and even here the original account was "kept" in a certain sense, as a
plot point in the ongoing story of the Ring.
> Sticky, indeed....
Not at all. It is all perfectly straight.
James Kuyper Jr.
>
> On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote:
> > Where is that particular line in the
> > sand drawn?
>
> We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.
> Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate,
> except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other
> minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition.
And where exactly do you put the rest of Tolkien's writings? When you
get down to level of detail that is typical of this newsgroup, they
contradict each other. The question of which source is to be preferred
is far from trivial.
...
> > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
> > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR,
> > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor.
>
> I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the
> book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as
> reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.
It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness
of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings.
John Whelan
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, James Kuyper Jr. wrote:
> John Whelan wrote:
> >
> > On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote:
> ...
> > > Where is that particular line in the
> > > sand drawn?
> >
> > We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.
> > Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate,
> > except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other
> > minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition.
>
> And where exactly do you put the rest of Tolkien's writings? When you
> get down to level of detail that is typical of this newsgroup, they
> contradict each other.
What other writings are you referring to? Do you mean the ones he never
published? Do you mean the ones he never finished?
> The question of which source is to be preferred
> is far from trivial.
The question may not be trivial, but neither is it difficult. Clearly,
the works that he actually finished and published are the ones that take
precedence. There are only two such books. They are The Hobbit and The
Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien was not some damned George Lucas. He did not go around constantly
changing his mind, and then expecting his readers to swallow it because
that was what he "always intended". He valued the suspension of
disbelief, and knew that if his readers were to take him seriously he had
to be consistent with what he had already put forth.
Yes, he did revise chapter 5 of "The Hobbit". But first he made sure that
he had a damn good explanation for the fact that two different versions
existed -- one that was consistent with suspension of disbelief. He did
not say (like a George Lucas) "I changed my mind, and its my creation
anyway, so fuck you all". Instead he allowed both versions of the story
to exist, explained why one was false, and allowed that lie to be a
significant point in the ongoing story.
If he had ever gotten around to publishing his other works, I imagine he
would have done his best to ensure that it was as consistent as possible
with what he had already published, or at least provided an explanation
for the discrepancy as he did with the revised Riddle-game story. He is
the sort of author who feels he owes that sort of thing to his readers.
Even if he regretted something he wrote earlier, he would still feel
obliged to be consistent with it.
> > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
> > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR,
> > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor.
> >
> > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the
> > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as
> > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.
>
> It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness
> of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings.
Have you noted any discrepancies with LOTR? Apart from that, The Hobbit
should clearly take precedence over anything not published in Tolkien's
lifetime.
Still, I would be interested to hear any examples of discrepancies you
have in mind.
-- Lupus Australis
Kingasaurus
---I'm not sure I can give an answer because I'm not sure I agree with the
question. I'm not sure what you mean by "canonical". Clearly, all of the
accounts given in LOTR are intended to be translations of accounts that
were written by hobbits. We may assume that they are all substantially
accurate and wholly honest, but perhaps not entirely verbatim descriptions
of dialogue. Some of the accounts are based on first-person experience,
and others are based on research by these same hobbits interviewing the
non-hobbit participants in the War of the Ring. The events in "The
Hobbit" are supposed to be based on Bilbo's own writings, and this, in and
of itself, is enough to explain certain deviations of style and attitude
from the later books. The account of the riddle-game from the 1937
edition has been explained and incorporated into the ongoing story, even
though it is now considered false. But this lie was, as is pointed out in
LOTR, very uncharacteristic of Bilbo, and so there is no reason to assume
that anything else in "The Hobbit" (or anything at all in the revised
Tell that to certain people in the Newsgroups who believe that there are no
blond-haired wood-Elves and the description of such in "The Hobbit" is some
kind of mistake or oversight that Tolkien "corrected" in his later opinions on
this subject.
I'm agreeing with you. They aren't.
> Is it safe to assume that the "stone giants" are one of Bilbo's fairy-tale
> embellishments to his memoirs,
---It's just that
what these "giants" actually were is uncertain, and subject to
interpretation.---
Correct.
> Where is that particular line in the
> sand drawn?
---We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.---
Oh, but we do. What conclusion should we draw when a statement in the
Silmarillion contradicts a statement in the Hobbit? Any ideas? Many are
inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are
considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his
invented mythology.
> Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess?
--Clearly, he was blond. ----
I'm with you so far....
> Even though JRR
> originally wrote the Hobbit distinct from his early Sil (and in a children's
> style), he later was forced to "fit" the Hobbit into his universe, as is
shown
> by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
> Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of
LOTR,
> while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor.
---I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the
book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as
reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.----
The whole style of the Hobbit is less reverent about EVERYTHING, simply becuse
of the style in which JRR decided to write it.
> So....which "fairy-tale"-sounding details would go, and which details
> would stay, if he had ever - hypothetically - engaged in such a rewrite?
---He already engaged in a rewrite. What he chose to revise are already a
matter of record. AFAIK, only the riddle-game was significantly revised,
and even here the original account was "kept" in a certain sense, as a
plot point in the ongoing story of the Ring.---
I know, but you seem to be missing my point. The fact that the Hobbit was not
originally intended to be "attached" to the early Silmarillion mythology makes
a difference in the choices Tolkien made when he wrote the Hobbit. The choices
were much different when he wrote LOTR, which was clearly intended to be linked
to the Sil from the moment he started it. I don't think it's controversial to
state that because of this state of affairs, some inconsistencies have arisen
between items in the Hobbit, and items in the Sil. The hair color of a certain
Elven-King being one of them.
> Sticky, indeed....
---Not at all. It is all perfectly straight.----
Hang around a while. See how much argument you get in the newsgroup on a
statement like that. :)
Panacea
attributions attached, regarding the canonicity / noncanonicity of works,
w.r.t. differing accounts in The Hobbit and The Silmarillion of the hair
color of a particular elven-king>
To be totally flippant about it, has it occurred to anyone that the elf in
question, being immortal, could very well have got bored with his natural
hair color at some point and dyed or bleached it? Sure, the text doesn't
say he did, and the text offers no circumstantial evidence that I recollect
for elves or anyone else altering their hair color, but if he's got one
color hair in the first age and another color hair in the third age, and
the change isn't due to natural physical aging, the simple answer can be
found in a bottle on the supermarket shelf, or, in M.E., concocted out of
herbs and berries and such.
Thena really should NOT read newsgroups when sleep deprived.
James Kuyper Jr.
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, James Kuyper Jr. wrote:
>
> > John Whelan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote:
> > ...
> > > > sand drawn?
> > >
> > > Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate,
> > > except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other
> > > minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition.
> >
> > And where exactly do you put the rest of Tolkien's writings? When you
> > get down to level of detail that is typical of this newsgroup, they
> > contradict each other.
>
> What other writings are you referring to? Do you mean the ones he never
> published? Do you mean the ones he never finished?
Of course. Also the Letters - I don't know whether those were published
in his lifetime. If you want to completely ignore the other works, then
what you're doing is giving them a canonicity of 0. An odd decision,
IMO, but your choice.
> > The question of which source is to be preferred
> > is far from trivial.
>
> The question may not be trivial, but neither is it difficult. Clearly,
> the works that he actually finished and published are the ones that take
> precedence. There are only two such books. They are The Hobbit and The
> Lord of the Rings.
There are a few other relevant criterion: later works are more
cannonical than earlier ones. More detailed works are more cannonical
than brief summaries. Works that are significantly inconsistent with
other cannonical works are more cannonical than those which are not.
Whether or not a work got published is not the only thing that should be
considered.
> > > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
> > > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR,
> > > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor.
> > >
> > > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the
> > > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as
> > > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.
> >
> > It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness
> > of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings.
>
> Have you noted any discrepancies with LOTR? Apart from that, The Hobbit
> should clearly take precedence over anything not published in Tolkien's
> lifetime.
I disagree. When you consider the history of "The Hobbit", many of it's
more childish features should be discounted as inconsistent with
Tolkien's mythology, even though most of that mythology was never
published in his lifetime. He had always intended to publish the
Silmarillion; the fact that this didn't happen in his lifetime was
merely an accident.
TH was written as a children's book, originally with no strong ties to
the mythology. When he wrote LoTR, it was originally intended as merely
a sequel to TH, but eventually it developed a more serious air, and
strong ties to his mythology. That required a number of revisions to TH,
but Tolkien never made all the changes that would be required to
eliminate the incompatibilities.
John Whelan
On 6 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote:
> LOTR, very uncharacteristic of Bilbo, and so there is no reason to assume
> that anything else in "The Hobbit" (or anything at all in the revised
> edition) is wrong or inaccurate. ---
> Tell that to certain people in the Newsgroups who believe that there are
> no blond-haired wood-Elves and the description of such in "The Hobbit"
> is some kind of mistake or oversight that Tolkien "corrected" in his
> later opinions on this subject.
This is just the sort of detail that I cannot see anyone getting worked up
about. Surely the world is complex enough that there can be an exception
to every rule, and surely the wood-elf king has enough magic at his
disposal that he could change his hair-color if he so chose (whatever his
motives). If Bilbo says the king was blond when he met him then why doubt?
> I'm agreeing with you. They aren't.
OK.
> ---We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.---
>
> Oh, but we do. What conclusion should we draw when a statement in the
> Silmarillion contradicts a statement in the Hobbit? Any ideas?
The Hobbit takes precedence because it was actually completed and
published in Tolkien's lifetime, whereas the Silmarillion was not. This
assumes the "contradiction" cannot be resolved with a little imagination,
which it usually can.
> Many are
> inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are
> considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his
> invented mythology.
I would give the reverse conclusion. I would call them less fully
developed, because he never published them. Perhaps he felt publication
was premature because he had not hammered out all the inconsistencies yet.
If I were an author, that is how I would want my work to be judged.
> The whole style of the Hobbit is less reverent about EVERYTHING, simply
> becuse of the style in which JRR decided to write it.
This irreverence is not insignificant, but it can only be carried so far.
Perhaps Bilbo was being a bit flippant with language when he described the
spirits encountered in the Misty Mountains as "giants", but he did not
invent the encounter. Also, regardless of how irreverent Bilbo's attitude
may have been towards the Wood-elf king, I'm sure he did not assign him
the wrong hair color. Why would he?
> ---He already engaged in a rewrite. What he chose to revise are already a
> matter of record. AFAIK, only the riddle-game was significantly revised,
> and even here the original account was "kept" in a certain sense, as a
> plot point in the ongoing story of the Ring.---
> I know, but you seem to be missing my point. The fact that the Hobbit
> was not originally intended to be "attached" to the early Silmarillion
> mythology makes a difference in the choices Tolkien made when he wrote
> the Hobbit.
In spite of this, Tolkien took care to be faithful to the Hobbit when he
wrote LOTR, which was written AFTER he decided to attach his Silmarillion
writings (still unpublished) to the Hobbit. Tolkien evidently believes
that when once you publish a work and release it to your audience, you
have an obligation to be faithful to your audience and not contradict
yourself. This is important if you want to maintain suspension of
disbelief and have your readers take you seriously. All the evidence
indicates that Tolkien understood this well. On those occasions where he
did change his mind, he made sure that he had a damn good explanation and
excuse to give his readers.
> The choices were much different when he wrote LOTR, which
> was clearly intended to be linked to the Sil from the moment he started
> it. I don't think it's controversial to state that because of this state
> of affairs, some inconsistencies have arisen between items in the
> Hobbit, and items in the Sil. The hair color of a certain Elven-King
> being one of them.
I'm not sure if Tolkien was aware of this inconsistency. But if he was,
he probably would have resolved it prior to publishing the Silmarillion.
Since "The Hobbit" was already in print (and already in a revised and
corrected edition), then I am sure any corrections would have been made to
the Silmarillion, not The Hobbit. Alternatively, he might have found a
reasonable explanation for the contradiction, which can easily be done.
> > Sticky, indeed....
>
> ---Not at all. It is all perfectly straight.----
>
> Hang around a while. See how much argument you get in the newsgroup on a
> statement like that. :)
Sure :)
Kingasaurus
> inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are
> considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his
> invented mythology.
---I would give the reverse conclusion. I would call them less fully
developed, because he never published them. Perhaps he felt publication
was premature because he had not hammered out all the inconsistencies yet.
If I were an author, that is how I would want my work to be judged.----
I agree with most of your post except this. The fact that Tolkien never
published the Sil in his lifetime does not make it less relevant than the
Hobbit when discussing his invented mythology. TH, after all, is about one
small incident in the Third Age - the Quest of 13 Dwarves and one hobbit to
take revenge on a dragon . The Sil is the ENTIRE HISTORY of the universe from
the moment of creation to th ened of the Third Age. Are you absolutely
convinced the Hobbit should take precedence because he managed to get it
published while he was still alive? I'm not convinced of that at all. I would
agree with the following: That the Silmarillion is definitely more developed in
its conclusions about the mythology, however that is no excuse for the reader
to simply pretend that the events and descriptions in the Hobbit didn't happen.
As you have already said, a compromise would have to exist in the reader's mind
to reslove or gloss over the inconsistencies in question.
Douglas Henderson
Except for this, JRRT accepted the Hobbit and LOTR as finished works.
He decided that where it was was where he wanted it to be when he let
is go to the publisher. The Sil? It's very impressive and nice to
read in its own right, but equally it was completely within his power
to decide on radically different interpretations before he published
it, it seems to me.
Works published posthumously are with rare exceptions for a finished
work that was in the author's hand when he collapsed on the way to the
post office with the final draft, merely works in progress.
I am somewhat perplexed though with this need to explain everything by
reference to things considered holy writ or not. Some clarification
is helpful but must all things be spelled out?
Gav
ruling Steward. Denethor was jealous of Thorongil because of the repect he
was given by everybody, including his own father. This obviously occurred
many years before the events described in LotR. It is in the Appendices and
also in Unfinished tales (if memory serves).
I mentioned this as an indicator the Aragorn had noticibly aged by the time
the events described in LotR occurred.
Gav.
Andreas Jaeger <and...@eyfa.org> wrote in message
news:37a8d7f9...@news.tel.hr...
John Whelan
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, James Kuyper Jr. wrote:
> > What other writings are you referring to? Do you mean the ones he never
> > published? Do you mean the ones he never finished?
>
> Of course. Also the Letters - I don't know whether those were published
> in his lifetime.
Neither do I. But in any event, such letters are going to be very casual
documents at best. They can add to our understanding by presenting new
knowledge or perhaps clarify the meaning of something that wasn't clear.
But by no means should they actually take *precedence* over a finished
work that has been written, rewritten and revised countless times, then
proofread, edited, and revised again in preparation for final publishing.
I have heard that in some of his letters Tolkien expresses some regret
that he wrote the Hobbit in precisely the style that he did. This does
not alter the fact that, despite any such regrets, Tolkien permitted The
Hobbit to stand in more-or-less its original form. He made changes only
when he could explain the contradiction in a manner that would satisfy the
reader and not betray the suspension of disbelief. His loyalty to his
readers took precedence over his changing preferences and second thoughts,
and he insisted on remaining faithful to what he had written. I salute
and respect him for it. As I have said before, Tolkien ain't no damned
George Lucas.
> If you want to completely ignore the other works, then
> what you're doing is giving them a canonicity of 0. An odd decision,
> IMO, but your choice.
I never said I wanted to "completely ignore the other works". Nor am I
accustomed to assigning numerical "canonicity" values to things. I'm not
sure what you are talking about.
Tolkien did his best to make his works consistent and to avoid *any*
contradiction that would interfere with suspension of disbelief. In this
respect, all his works...those that were completed...are equally "canon".
Any resulting inconsistencies would be a regrettable and unintentional
error on Tolkien's part. We cannot necessarily assume that he would
resolve it in favor of a later work...unless the later work were not yet
published. In the later case, it is clearly the unpublished work that
would end up being corrected were an inconsistency to be called to his
attention. It is far more difficult, and far more disloyal and rude to
your readers, to correct a published work than an unpublished manuscript.
> > > The question of which source is to be preferred
> > > is far from trivial.
> >
> > The question may not be trivial, but neither is it difficult. Clearly,
> > the works that he actually finished and published are the ones that take
> > precedence. There are only two such books. They are The Hobbit and The
> > Lord of the Rings.
>
> There are a few other relevant criterion: later works are more
> cannonical than earlier ones.
Says who? I'm not sure where you are getting these rules from. Is it
from Star Wars? Your rule is based on a single, dubious assumption: that
an author has the right to change his mind and ignore what he wrote
previously, and yet have his audience continue to swallow his bullshit.
That's George Lucas's rule, not Tolkien's.
As far as I am concerned, a reader does *not* have to accept a later work
as more "canonical" unless he likes the later work better. A good author
will do his best to keep his works consistent, and not force his reader to
choose. Tolkien is a good author.
Of course, he is not a perfect author. I'm sure that mistakes and
inconsitencies will creep in unintentionally. But in case of such errors
(for errors they are) it makes as much sense to assign the mistake to the
latter work than to the former. Indeed it usually makes far more sense.
Why? Because Tolkien did not know about "LOTR" when he wrote "The
Hobbit", but he did know about "The Hobbit" when he wrote LOTR. Thus, if
LOTR is inconsistent with "The Hobbit" this is the result of a mistake
made when writing LOTR, not The Hobbit.
If I put myself in Tolkien's shoes and imagine that I have just published
a sequel to a popular book of mine. Soon letters start pouring in from
fans, and one of them points out a mistake that is not consitent with the
original work. I slap my head with my hand and say "Damn, why didn't I
notice that!" A year later, my publisher gives me a chance to revise and
republish both novels. I think I, as an author, would be more inclined to
correct the later work in favor of the former. That would seem more loyal
to my readers, especially since the original work has been in print far
longer.
But as far as an unpublished work goes, there is absolutely no contest.
The published work would take precedence, hands down, in the case of any
contradiction.
I suppose this rule could be used fairly to assess the relative value of
various unpublished materials. It should never allow such materials to
take precedence over a finished published work. This is because, in the
mind of a good author, the "right to change one's mind" ends when your
book reaches the public.
> More detailed works are more cannonical
> than brief summaries.
I agree that greater detail implies greater knowledge which implies
greater accuracy. I also agree that brief summaries can be misleading
without being actually false. But such things must be judged on an
individual basis. I'm not sure how any of this applies to the Hobbit,
since no-one has yet given me any reasonable examples of inaccuracies in
the Hobbit that must be considered superceded.
In any event, such considerations should not allow an unfinished
unpublished work to take precedent over a finished published one.
> Works that are significantly inconsistent with
> other cannonical works are more cannonical than those which are not.
Now you're talking gobbledygook. I'm not sure I should try to respond
until you give me examples of how this dubious statement applies to the
works of Tolkien.
Of course, you can apply this dubious mind-twister of a rule only by
assigning Levels of Canonicity to various works, something that Tolkien
never did, and which I doubt he would have approved of.
> Whether or not a work got published is not the only thing that should be
> considered.
It is the first thing that must be considered. A published, finished work
is always "more canon" (to use your phrase) than an unpublished,
unfinished one. Once this is accepted, then I suppose you can apply your
other rules to determine the relative value (to eachother) of the
remaining unpublished material.
> > > > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye)
> > > > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR,
> > > > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor.
> > > >
> > > > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the
> > > > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as
> > > > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.
> > >
> > > It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness
> > > of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings.
> >
> > Have you noted any discrepancies with LOTR? Apart from that, The Hobbit
> > should clearly take precedence over anything not published in Tolkien's
> > lifetime.
>
> I disagree. When you consider the history of "The Hobbit", many of it's
> more childish features should be discounted as inconsistent with
> Tolkien's mythology,
Such as.....?
(tap, tap, tap, tap)
> even though most of that mythology was never
> published in his lifetime. He had always intended to publish the
> Silmarillion;
Unfortunately, he did not. This fact may be unfortunate, but that does
not mean it can be ignored. And I'm still waiting for someone to give me
a list of these alleged inconsistencies.
> the fact that this didn't happen in his lifetime was
> merely an accident.
It was an accident with consequences. The consequence is that
Silmarillion was never finished. One consequence (which you do not seem
to recognize as likely) was that Tolkien never got the opportunity to
hammer out these inconsistencies so that Silmarillion would be entirely
compatible with The Hobbit.
> TH was written as a children's book, originally with no strong ties to
> the mythology. When he wrote LoTR, it was originally intended as merely
> a sequel to TH, but eventually it developed a more serious air, and
> strong ties to his mythology. That required a number of revisions to TH,
> but Tolkien never made all the changes that would be required to
> eliminate the incompatibilities.
Actually, Tolkien made far more revisions to his Mythology on account of
The Hobbit, once he had decided that they were part of the same universe.
This is because he was already committed to the Hobbit (having already
published it). But the Silmarillion was still safely in his desk drawer
and could be messed with as much as he chose.
His revisions to The Hobbit (that I am aware) are not really revisions at
all -- at least not in the sense that they contradict the old. Rather,
they are additions. He did not discard the original version of the finding
of the Ring. It remains part of the story. The new, correct, version of
the story has more of the character of a relevation/plot twist. It is not
a George-Lucas style switcharound.
Tolkien remained faithful to "The Hobbit" while he lived. I think it only
reasonable to assume he would have continued to do so. Any
inconsistencies with The Hobbit that are in the Silmarillion should be
considered the mistakes of an unfinished work.
And of course I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what these alleged
inconsistencies are.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On 6 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote:
> > Many are
> > inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are
> > considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his
> > invented mythology.
>
> ---I would give the reverse conclusion. I would call them less fully
> developed, because he never published them. Perhaps he felt publication
> was premature because he had not hammered out all the inconsistencies yet.
> If I were an author, that is how I would want my work to be judged.----
> I agree with most of your post except this. The fact that Tolkien never
> published the Sil in his lifetime does not make it less relevant than
> the Hobbit when discussing his invented mythology.
Your phrasing is a bit loaded. Since Silmarillion is all about Tolkien's
"invented Mythology", and The Hobbit is only peripherally concerned with
that subject, it would be a bit strange of me to argue that The Hobbit is
more relevant *to* the invented Mythology.
I can paraphrase your own argument and turn it back on you: "The fact
that Tolkien published The Hobbit earlier does not make it less relevant
than the Sil when discussing the Quest for Erebor."
But I was not saying that it was more relevant to his Mythology. I was
saying that it is a finished work. Therefore, to the extent that they
contradict (and I'm not sure they do at all), "The Hobbit" takes
precedence. However, they should rarely contradict, since they are about
different things.
> TH, after all, is
> about one small incident in the Third Age - the Quest of 13 Dwarves and
> one hobbit to take revenge on a dragon. The Sil is the ENTIRE HISTORY
> of the universe from the moment of creation to th ened of the Third Age.
Right. They are about different things. That is why contradiction should
not be a problem. I believe it was in Tolkien's power to make them
compatible, and I believe that was his intention.
> Are you absolutely convinced the Hobbit should take precedence because
> he managed to get it published while he was still alive?
That is my position. I believe that authors should be loyal to their
readers and faithful to what they have already published. I have
excellent reason to believe that was Tolkien's position as well. I
believe he intended to do this with Silmarillion. Since the Silmarillion
was never finished, you certainly cannot know that these inconsistencies
were not mistakes that would have been corrected in a final edition. I am
talking hypothetically, of course, since I am not aware of any such
mistakes. I am only aware of the issue of the Elven King's hair-color, an
incredibly minor point, and a poor excuse for discounting what Bilbo saw
with his own eyes.
> I'm not
> convinced of that at all. I would agree with the following: That the
> Silmarillion is definitely more developed in its conclusions about the
> mythology, however that is no excuse for the reader to simply pretend
> that the events and descriptions in the Hobbit didn't happen. As you
> have already said, a compromise would have to exist in the reader's mind
> to reslove or gloss over the inconsistencies in question.
I'm not sure if we are truly in disagreement at all.
Jonathan S Kent
Bread (loo...@droids.net) wrote:
: Douglas Henderson wrote:
: >
: > I'd say Allan Rickman for Aragon, Branagh for Boromir, John Cromwell for
: > Theoden, Jo Anderson for Eowyn, etc.
I like Rickman for Aragon (provided they make him a bit taller and
more lanky) but Branagh for Boromir? UNless he's hit the weights and been
taking the creatine, I just don't see it.
Jonathan
--
****************************************************************
* Jonathan Kent / jk35...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu / Ohio Univ. *
* http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~jk358797 *
****************************************************************
Kingasaurus
of wandering in the Wild to make you look like Strider,'"
Aragorn, FotR: Strider--
I believe that refers to his weatherbeaten, haggard look, as opposed to his
simply looking "older" because of the aging process.
The Arcane Chas
after serious contemplation, Kingasaurus <jeop...@aol.com> put finger
to keyboard and produced the following;
>---"'It would take more than a few days, or weeks, or years,
>of wandering in the Wild to make you look like Strider,'"
>Aragorn, FotR: Strider--
>
>I believe that refers to his weatherbeaten, haggard look, as opposed to his
>simply looking "older" because of the aging process.
Agreed, but in the previous chapter when we are introduced to Strider we
read; "As Frodo drew near he [Strider] threw back his hood, showing a
shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey" , and in a pale stern face
a pair of keen grey eyes."
So we know that he is starting to show signs of ageing (and also the
colour of his eyes).
--
Cheers,
Chas.
http://www.lindsayc.force9.co.uk (updated 15/5/99)
Kingasaurus
colour of his eyes).---
Yes, but having a little grey hair is not an indicator of how "old" Aragorn's
face should look. I consider that question very important because many are
complaining that the actor is too young in the face to play Strider. I'm not
sure, and I think it is open to interpretation as to how "old" (not "rugged",
mind you) Strider should look. Especially in the face.
Jouni Karhu
>Agreed, but in the previous chapter when we are introduced to Strider we
>read; "As Frodo drew near he [Strider] threw back his hood, showing a
>shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey" , and in a pale stern face
>a pair of keen grey eyes."
>
>colour of his eyes).
Hey, I'm under 30 and I have a couple of grey hairs :)
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Mike Scott Rohan
from jsk...@gcfn.org (Jonathan S Kent) contains these words:
> 7...@news.actrix.gen.nz> <37A2881F...@mindspring.com>Distribution:
> Bread (loo...@droids.net) wrote:
> : Douglas Henderson wrote:
> : >
> : > I'd say Allan Rickman for Aragon, Branagh for Boromir, John Cromwell for
> : > Theoden, Jo Anderson for Eowyn, etc.
> I like Rickman for Aragon (provided they make him a bit taller and
> more lanky)
MORE lanky? Rickman's unusually tall and pretty lanky, though like a
lot of tall people he slouches. He never looks energetic enough for
Aragorn, though. Saw him in Anthony & Cleopatra not long ago, and he
lumbered around as if he was going to fall asleep any moment.
but Branagh for Boromir? UNless he's hit the weights and been
> taking the creatine, I just don't see it.
Agreed. Branagh is definitely on the small side, though he's quite
burly. You need somebody big, dark haired and clean-cut, a bit cold
and stolid till he finally flips -- maybe Kyle McLachlan?
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown this August -- The Singer & The Sea
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Jeff Blanks
> Jonathan S Kent) wrote:
> >Branagh for Boromir? UNless he's hit the weights and been
> > taking the creatine, I just don't see it.
> Agreed. Branagh is definitely on the small side, though he's quite
> burly. You need somebody big, dark haired and clean-cut,
But what about Boromir's shoulder-length hair??
> a bit cold and stolid till he finally flips -- maybe Kyle McLachlan?
! I wouldn't call him "cold," though--maybe a bit _hard_, but actually a
bit on the expressive side (at least WRT Aragorn).
--
"Americans never solve their problems;
they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana
Jeff Blanks
kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) wrote:
> mcr...@aol.com (McREsq) wrote:
> >He sorta looks like a Noldor. I could see him as Elrond or one of his sons.
> >Legloas and Glorfindel are blond, right?
> >I agree that he seems a bit young for Aragorn. What the hell, as long as he
> >can act let makeup do the rest.
They probably need someone who can play the flashback scenes with Arwen.
PJ has said they're trying to expand Arwen's role (to the extent that she
might fill in for Glorfindel at the Ford, perhaps, [1] the way Bakshi had
Legolas do?), and incorporating scenes from the Tale Of Aragorn And Arwen
would be a good way to do it.
> Legolas has a dark hair.
Agreed.
RANT: I know what they say about keeping the number of characters down,
but I tend to think that if an event is depicted, the characters should be
kept, too. In Franco Zefferelli's film of _Hamlet_ (the one with Mel
Gibson in the title role), they give the "There is a willow grows aslant a
brook..." speech to Glenn Close as Gertrude, rather than to an unnamed
member of the household, as in the original. I'm not even that much of a
Shakespeare fan, but I was still a bit put off by that.
[1] Watch him get cut somehow, anyway. Too bad--I kinda like him. A bit
of a hippie, and not as snooty as the others when JRRT establishes that he
could be. :-P
Cian
> Since the Silmarillion was never finished, you certainly cannot know that
> these inconsistencies were not mistakes that would have been corrected in a
> final edition. I am
> talking hypothetically, of course, since I am not aware of any such mistakes. I
> am only aware of the issue of the Elven King's hair-color, an incredibly minor
> point, and a poor excuse for discounting what Bilbo saw with his own eyes.
An incredibly minor point? Heck, no such thing here. And I never discount Bilbo;
my earlier post last week did contain the phrase: "If Thranduil is a blond
Sindarin king then so be it ..." included to show that I accept the description
despite the little speculation that followed --
Anyway, it's no secret we are asked to do a little in-story 'dancing' to smooth
some elements within the H with LOTR's. This 'smoothing' doesn't bother me, in
fact I think it lends to the inner reality and belief that each work is a unique
translation -- but out in the real world, it's a dance just the same; I mean, to
admit we know the 'real' reason behind the reason that Bilbo lied about the 'ring
finding' incident is not to discount anything that Tolkien wrote I think.
You say Tolkien had an obligation to the H when writing LOTR's and I agree, and
why else the imaginative explanations to smooth the two. With respect to the small
detail of a blond Sindarin king vrs appendix F it's simply not as smooth as it
could be IMO, but seeming exceptions to 'rules' will surface in any event -see
Cirdan-
> <Kingasaurus >also typed: That the Silmarillion is definitely more developed in
> its conclusions about the mythology, however that is no excuse for the reader to
> simply pretend that the events and descriptions in the Hobbit didn't happen.<<
[see above] then allow me to re-word my earlier post, so it fits better with what
I'm (trying) to splutter out, and hopefully worded this way, will reveal that I am
not some stubborn lunatic crossing out the word 'golden' in all of my Hobbit
editions. I am altogether a different kind of lunatic!
Had Tolkien written the Hobbit -after- LOTR's I -believe- he would have chosen
dark or silver hair for Thranduil, given what I read in Appendix F and elsewhere.
Yes, a rather huge and impossible 'what if' -- but the point was rather innocuous
to begin with in the face of proving Legolas as blond or dark-haired, which was
the only reason I piped up in the first place.
PS. I still believe Legolas has dark hair, and I noted another 'believer' here
last night. heh, heh [:-)]
Cian
Paris
sufficiently 'rugged' and 'wheather-worn' look.
Jeff Blanks <jbl...@mindspring.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:jblanks-0908...@nntp.mindspring.com...
> Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Jonathan S Kent) wrote:
> > >Branagh for Boromir? UNless he's hit the weights and been
> > > taking the creatine, I just don't see it.
>
> > Agreed. Branagh is definitely on the small side, though he's quite
> > burly. You need somebody big, dark haired and clean-cut,
>
> But what about Boromir's shoulder-length hair??
>
> > a bit cold and stolid till he finally flips -- maybe Kyle McLachlan?
>
> ! I wouldn't call him "cold," though--maybe a bit _hard_, but actually a
> bit on the expressive side (at least WRT Aragorn).
>
Andreaw
Paris wrote in message <7oqike$bud$1...@zingo.tninet.se>...
Neil Carr
Jonathan S Kent wrote:
> 7...@news.actrix.gen.nz> <37A2881F...@mindspring.com>Distribution:
>
> Bread (loo...@droids.net) wrote:
> : Douglas Henderson wrote:
> : >
> : > I'd say Allan Rickman for Aragon, Branagh for Boromir, John Cromwell for
> : > Theoden, Jo Anderson for Eowyn, etc.
>
> I like Rickman for Aragon (provided they make him a bit taller and
> more lanky) but Branagh for Boromir? UNless he's hit the weights and been
> taking the creatine, I just don't see it.
Where does it say Boromir was a lunking great ConanTheBarbarian? He is describes
as a 'tall man with a fair and NOBLE face,[...]proud and stern of glance', and
he is a Gondorian, therefore the pinnacle of Third Age "civilised" men. Boromir
is the son of a ruler, and as such, is a good captain of men - have you seen
Branagh's Hamlet orHenry V? Branagh can most certainly pull off Boromir. Or
Faramir. He won't though...*sigh*...this is probably one of those parts to be
played by an unknown.
Neil, who has a ...fondness...for the Bakshi movie, but really, really hates
their Aragorn and Boromir, most of all.
Gav
Faramir is said to somewhat resemble Aragorn in build and manner as opposed
to Boromir.
Gav.
Neil Carr <neilR...@zigREMOVE.co.za> wrote in message
news:37B163FD...@zigREMOVE.co.za...
Hazel
Gav wrote:
> I not 100% sure but I thought later in the books a point is made where
> Faramir is said to somewhat resemble Aragorn in build and manner as opposed
> to Boromir.
To quote Appendix A from TotK:
"So time drew on to the War of the Ring, and the sons of Denethor grew to
manhood. Boromir, five years the elder, beloved by his father, was like him in
face and pride, but in little else... Faramir the younger was like him in looks
but otherwise in mind."
Hazel
Laurie Forbes
news:37B2CEF7...@actcom.co.il...
From RoTK, "Minas Tirith", Pippin meeting Denethor:
"Then the old man looked up. Pippin saw his carven face with its proud
bones and skin like ivory, and the long curved nose between the dark
deep eyes; and he was reminded not so much of Boromir as of Aragorn."
And (RoTK, "Minas Tirith", Gandalf speaking)
" 'He (Denethor) is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever
be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of
Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son,
Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best.' "
And (RoTK, "The Siege of Gondor")
"Proud and grave he (Faramir) stood for a moment as he spoke to the
guard, and Pippin gazing at him saw how closely he resembled his
brother Boromir - whom Pippin had liked from the first, admiring the
great man's lordly but kindly manner. Yet suddenly for Faramir his
heart was strangely moved with a feeling that he had not known
before. Here was one with an air of high nobility such as Aragorn
at times revealed, less high perhaps, yet also less incalculable
and remote: one of the Kings of Men born into a later time,
but touched with the wisdom and sadness of the Elder Race."
--
Laurie Forbes
Jereeza
"Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> decided to release into
cyberspace:
>
>Diane Hancock <diane_...@hp.com> wrote in message
>news:37b49189....@news.corp.hp.com...
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:39:55 -0400, Larry Richards
>> <lg...@virginia.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Ryan Paddy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Aragorn. IDHTBWM, but I seem to recall Boromir is also described
>> >as ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >Now this is a first for me (though I figured out what it meant). But it
>> >gave me an idea. Since we have dozens of these things by now---IMO,
>> >IMHO, IMNSHO, LOL, BTW, IIRC, etc.---I was thinking that maybe all our
>> >posts should just be the first letter of every word. This would greatly
>> >cut down on band width and server storage space. WDYT?
>> >
>> >LGR
>> >
>>
>> SGTM.
>>
>> DH
>
>IA. LDO!
>--
>L "ARTTSN" F
>
>
E? AITOSPH? *T*WBN!
--
Jereeza the Witch-Pearl of the East
"At the moment it's just a Notion, but with a bit
of backing I think I could turn it into a Concept,
and then an Idea." - Woody Allen, 'Annie Hall'
ps. remove dessin when replying
Ryan Paddy
Neil Carr wrote:
> Where does it say Boromir was a lunking great ConanTheBarbarian? He is describes
> as a 'tall man with a fair and NOBLE face,[...]proud and stern of glance', and
> he is a Gondorian, therefore the pinnacle of Third Age "civilised" men. Boromir
> is the son of a ruler, and as such, is a good captain of men - have you seen
> Branagh's Hamlet orHenry V? Branagh can most certainly pull off Boromir. Or
> Faramir. He won't though...*sigh*...this is probably one of those parts to be
> played by an unknown.
When the Fellowship is trying to get back down Mt Caradhas (sp?) there
is a physical description of Boromir as being shorter and broader than
Aragorn. IDHTBWM, but I seem to recall Boromir is also described as
hugely strong when he starts pushing the snow in front of him.
Having Boromir as the 'strong-man' in the movie will make good casting
sense. It would differentiate him from the rest of the fellowship in the
eyes of the viewer, and make him a more ominous semi-villain. Of course
he shouldn't look like a barbarian (a la Bakshi), but showing him as a
hulking warrior would not contradict the books.
Righto!
Ryan
['Discretion being the better part of valor, and cowardice being the
better part of discretion, Ford valorously hid in the closet' ~ Adams]
Larry Richards
> Aragorn. IDHTBWM, but I seem to recall Boromir is also described
Diane Hancock
Laurie Forbes
IA. LDO!
--
L "ARTTSN" F
Tenderfoot
<lg...@virginia.edu> wrote:
>Ryan Paddy wrote:
>
>> Aragorn. IDHTBWM, but I seem to recall Boromir is also described
>as ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Now this is a first for me (though I figured out what it meant). But it
>gave me an idea. Since we have dozens of these things by now---IMO,
>IMHO, IMNSHO, LOL, BTW, IIRC, etc.---I was thinking that maybe all our
>posts should just be the first letter of every word. This would greatly
>cut down on band width and server storage space. WDYT?
ITTAEI.
--
T.
softrat
>Once upon a time, more precisely on Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:28:37 -0400,
>"Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> decided to release into
>cyberspace:
<snip>
>E? AITOSPH? *T*WBN!
YGASS!!!!
MTFBWY
t sr
May the Farce Be With You
the softrat
Ali Valeh
day - weather beaten, twisted- faced British (I think) actor called
Jim/Jimmy Niall. Bent-nosed and twisted-faced on first impression but able
to convey a gentle and regal presence when required. Too obvious to cast all
of the "good" characters with handsome actors in my opinion.
Laurie Forbes
softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:37b6f076....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM...
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:24:55 GMT, m...@frodo.net (Jereeza) wrote:
>
> >Once upon a time, more precisely on Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:28:37 -0400,
> >"Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> decided to release into
> >cyberspace:
> <snip>
> >E? AITOSPH? *T*WBN!
>
> YGASS!!!!
>
> MTFBWY
>
> t sr
>
--
L "STLOYL" F
Jereeza
>
> softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:37b6f076....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM..
> >
> > >Once upon a time, more precisely on Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:28:37 -0400,
> > >"Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> decided to release into
> > >cyberspace:
> > <snip>
> > >E? AITOSPH? *T*WBN!
> >
> > YGASS!!!!
> >
> > MTFBWY
> >
> > t sr
> >
> O, Y?? ITOTKO!
ISS. IKLI :)
JtWPotE
Tenderfoot
wrote:
>The aragorn I imagined when I was reading a book, appeared on tv the other
>day - weather beaten, twisted- faced British (I think) actor called
>Jim/Jimmy Niall. Bent-nosed and twisted-faced on first impression but able
>to convey a gentle and regal presence when required.
Aye, as long as he wears his Crocodile Shoes.
--
Tenderfoot
Jereeza
Or:
I don't want nobody else... :)
--
JtWPotE
CHUCK BRAMLET
In a private exchange discussing the film, I developed the following
ideas.
I had said:
>>The sad thing is, PJ may not have any choice in the matter. He who
>>has the gold makes the rules, and those backing the film may want
>>to make the changes to appeal to the modern American audience that
>>_has_to_ have those things. Hollywood is scared to death of
>>originality, because it implies risk. Risk implies losing money,
>>and they _can't_ do that. So, they would deliberately make a bad
>>adaptation and try to attract a larger audience, rather than make
>>a good adaptation, and risk a smaller audience of purists.
He replied:
>This is a point some people don't seem to get. They talk about
>the necessity to include "the corny stuff", as in Star Wars -
>and much as I enjoyed the Star Wars films, I do expect something
>a little better than that from Peter Jackson.
And I replied:
It's an unfortunate fact of modern life that Hollywood acts like
a dope pusher. They have convinced people that they want sex and
violence, so about all they produce is S&V. When people complain
about what they produce, they cry "But we're only making what the
people want.
That translates into _no_ movies that don't include a love/sex
interest - no "family" stuff, etc, etc.
LOTR is a medieval war adventure. It needs few women. Galadriel is
necessary, Eowyn is vital, and Arwen is a minor but also necessary
character. We, as the audience, _don't_ need to see Aragorn hopping
Arwen in the forests of Rivendell or Lorien, no matter how much it
will add to the numbers of teenage viewers. It would be _totally_
_out_of_character_for_Aragorn_, in any case.
In the three women, we have the "Three faces of Eve", so to speak.
Or, more to the point, 3 faces of woman. Galadriel as woman the
Queen, Eowym as woman who wants to change the world, to do great
things, and Arwen as woman the Hearth Warmer, the keeper of the
home.
Also, I doubt if JRRT's Elrond would have allowed Arwen to fight in
the WR, even if it were the custom for women of the time to do so,
and even if she were capable, remembering how Celebrian was so damaged
by her captivity by the orcs. Sending her, or allowing her to go,
against the Nazgul would be the _last_ thing he would do.
--
John Whelan
On 21 Aug 1999, CHUCK BRAMLET wrote:
> LOTR is a medieval war adventure. It needs few women. Galadriel is
> necessary, Eowyn is vital, and Arwen is a minor but also necessary
> character. We, as the audience, _don't_ need to see Aragorn hopping
> Arwen in the forests of Rivendell or Lorien, no matter how much it
> will add to the numbers of teenage viewers. It would be _totally_
> _out_of_character_for_Aragorn_, in any case.
Judging from his earlier films that I have seen, it would also be out of
character for Peter Jackson. In both Frighteners and Dead-Alive, the
romances were very low-key and free of overt sexuality. He never implies
that anyone does anything more than kiss. Heavenly Creatures did explore
some strong sexual themes, but in a completly non-exploitative manner.
None of the films have any nudity whatsoever. I stronglly doubt we will
get to see Aragorn "hopping" Arwen in the forests of Rivendell.
-- John Whelan