The "ownership" of modern mythologies like LOTR [Archive]

Black Breathalizer

09-29-2002, 09:35 AM

One of the themes running through the most heated debates you find on the Star Wars boards or the Lord of the Rings boards involves ownership. Who "owns" these stories, the authors or the fans?

When some Star Wars fans complain that George Lucas hasn't stayed true to his original movies, other fans counter that it's George's story and vision not the fans so GL should be able to do whatever he wants to with the series. When Jackson revises some aspects of FOTR for the screen (i.e. Arwen's role, the breaking of the fellowship), purists complain that there was no reason for PJ to alter Tolkien's vision. Who's right and why are the debates on these two fronts so passionate?

My take is that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are the two most powerful modern-day examples of mythology. Something about these two stories captured the imagination of people around the world. But it was much more than just entertainment on a grand scale. Something about the stories themselves affected people in very profound and personal ways. That's the only way you can explain why fans would dare argue that the creator of 'their' Star Wars, sold out. It also explains why some Tolkienites refuse to embrace the 'new' cinematic telling of 'their' Lord of the Rings because it isn't a literal translation of the books.

My view is that living mythologies through the ages have always been dynamic and ever-changing. Once a mythology is born within a culture, it no longer belongs to its original author, be it some Greek or Norse storyteller or JRR Tolkien. In the ancient days the evolution took place when the old storytellers chose to add their own distinct slants to the stories. The only difference today is that the movie screen has replaced the campfire and a screenwriter/director has replaced the storyteller.

What's your take on this?

Sween

09-29-2002, 11:12 AM

I hate to be so to the point but the ownership bellongs to the people that stump up for the rights to these things.

Writing and movie i have allways seen as gifts to the world. Both the world of star wars and middle earth are two places i wish i could forsake this world for and i thank there creators (george lucas and JRR Tolkien) for bringing them to me as they have both brought me much joy over the years.

Fans own jack **** of these worlds but it doesnt mean that we cannot dip into them now and again.

Regarding the star wars i personally feel that lucas has just lost the plot (theres a good reason that 4,5 and 6 were made first) and the movies he has made just dont feel like star wars (everything so damn clean). As for PJ he does not own Lord of the rings per say but he has got the ring it seems to produce an interpritation of it. The way in which Lord of the rings is written in a book would not transfer well into a movie there is too much long dialog and not enough converstion. Movies need to keep the dialog reasonably sharp and a lot of the characters in the book will often say 10 words when one will do which is good in a book but bad in film.

seeing as you are asking does this work become a property of the comunity. well is toliiens writting not much more than a collection of theames and languages from throgh out the ages? His work is hevily based upon other works before hand. So if he did it im sure he would not mind people taking his work then baseing there work upon his (he probably would not like it very much but you know who cares).

The origional author will allways own the story they wrote but we are all allowed to interpeerate it as best we please.

sun-star

09-29-2002, 01:09 PM

Tolkien. Sorry to be literal and unsophisticated :) but he created it, he made it, it belongs to him. At what stage does a book or film become 'mythology' instead of just story (if the two things are in fact so different)? Lots of people like Harry Potter, but it's a story, not a mythology. Many books/films affect people in personal, profound ways. I wouldn't say that means the fans have any 'ownership' of the original book/film. Does every creation belong to someone who loves it just because of their emotional investment? Just because you care about something doesn't give you any claim on it. If Tolkien were alive today and still writing, no one could question his right to do whatever he wanted with the world he invented - just because he's dead doesn't reduce his claim on it, IMO. We owe Tolkien for giving us so much pleasure - not the other way around.

Black Breathalizer

09-29-2002, 02:44 PM

Actually I wonder if "ownership" is too strong of a word to use for this discussion and gets people thinking about all the legalistic stuff.

My point was more that some stories become so strong and personal within a culture that they take on a life of their own. When this happens, the author - living or dead - loses some degree of control.

The reality is that Peter Jackson has forever changed the mythology (for better or worse) of Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong. PJ hasn't changed Tolkien's books. They are still there for everyone to love and enjoy just as people did fifty years ago. Just as the myths of old told over campfires, people's perceptions of this great story are changing with the times and with the medium.

BeardofPants

09-29-2002, 04:12 PM

Lets see if we can guess how many posts pass before BB mentions "purist"? Oh wait... :p

Earniel

09-29-2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Lets see if we can guess how many posts pass before BB mentions "purist"? Oh wait... :p

Too late:rolleyes: :)

I don't think you can compare Tolkien's middle-earth to ancient mythology on that level. Sure he borrowed several elements of it but unlike ancient mythology, Middle-earth has ONE creator: Tolkien. In old mythologies you have several possible creators/writers: Homer, Taliesin, Oisinn, .... You can't pinpoint one writer who created the whole of the Egyptian, Scandinavian or Greek mythology. The material has also been handed down for generations so that -if hypothetically there ever was one- the one true creator is lost in history. But mythologies grow most of the time from combining several stories from different stories. Most mythologies were also handed down a lot orally before they got written down. It is natural for them to change in that course. In that case I think you can more or less say that the mythology is owned by the people.

But Middle-earth is a different case. For one it isn't handed down through generations and the only creator is known. Middle-earth is made up by Tolkien and therefore belongs to him. It may inspire a lot of people but that doesn't change matters of ownership. The world has changed a great deal more than turning campfires into cinema's.

BeardofPants

09-29-2002, 06:38 PM

Boy, I sure hope that Akhenaten copyrighted his monotheistic creation myths of Aten. Hmm.... :rolleyes:

Rána Eressëa

09-29-2002, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
I don't think you can compare Tolkien's middle-earth to ancient mythology on that level. Sure he borrowed several elements of it but unlike ancient mythology, Middle-earth has ONE creator: Tolkien. In old mythologies you have several possible creators/writers: Homer, Taliesin, Oisinn, .... You can't pinpoint one writer who created the whole of the Egyptian, Scandinavian or Greek mythology. The material has also been handed down for generations so that -if hypothetically there ever was one- the one true creator is lost in history. But mythologies grow most of the time from combining several stories from different stories. Most mythologies were also handed down a lot orally before they got written down. It is natural for them to change in that course. In that case I think you can more or less say that the mythology is owned by the people.

But Middle-earth is a different case. For one it isn't handed down through generations and the only creator is known. Middle-earth is made up by Tolkien and therefore belongs to him. It may inspire a lot of people but that doesn't change matters of ownership. The world has changed a great deal more than turning campfires into cinema's.

There's your answer. Tolkien created and owns Middle-earth. He is Eru.

gdl96

09-29-2002, 10:15 PM

And he still does own and control Middle Earth. Sure, PJ may have changed a few things (many of which were necessary for the movie), but if you go back and read that books, they are the same as they have been for fifty years. These movies are in no way a true representation of the books, and they should not be treated so. And I predict that the legacy of paper Middle Earth will long outlive the legacy of the 35mm Middle Earth.

cassiopeia

09-30-2002, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Actually I wonder if "ownership" is too strong of a word to use for this discussion and gets people thinking about all the legalistic stuff.

My point was more that some stories become so strong and personal within a culture that they take on a life of their own. When this happens, the author - living or dead - loses some degree of control.

The reality is that Peter Jackson has forever changed the mythology (for better or worse) of Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong. PJ hasn't changed Tolkien's books. They are still there for everyone to love and enjoy just as people did fifty years ago. Just as the myths of old told over campfires, people's perceptions of this great story are changing with the times and with the medium.

I'm not really sure there is a LOTR mythology. What is said in the books is it, and it doesn't change. As said in the books forum, we must keep the movie and book separate.

Millane

09-30-2002, 03:21 AM

i think that we are fans and readers/watchers the creator is the owner and it is pretty clear cut from where i am viewing it.
as regards to PJ chaging around some of tolkiens work for the movie it was PJ movie based on the books he kept it as true as he could so that not only tolkien fans could understand it but everyone else i think that that was a pretty bad example because it doesnt necessarily mean that he wanted to change everything but he had to.

Black Breathalizer

09-30-2002, 09:10 AM

A pertinent quote from JRR Tolkien taken from page 8 of Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia: "I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."

bropous

09-30-2002, 08:18 PM

Right. And the reality is that "The Ten Commandments" changed the Bible forever.

Non sequitur.

durin's bane

09-30-2002, 08:25 PM

lotr belongs to jrr tolkien, and star wars belongs to gl. even though there is a lotr movie, and sw books, it still is jrr's and george's stories. it doesn't belong to the fans or authors (star wars) or director person (lotr) but their both in page and screen for everyone to enjoy. i mean, i got the lotr books for christmas (except rotk) but i didn't appreciate them much until i saw the movie (it helped me understand the books a bit more because it got so confusing at parts!) i love both, book and movie.

Black Breathalizer

11-26-2003, 11:32 AM

In the latest issue of Newsweek, Jeff Giles points out that many fans are more eager for Jackson's vision of Middle Earth than of JRR Tolkien's. I think this kind of comment is the reason behind many Tolkien fans hatred of Peter Jackson. They see Jackson as the Pied Piper leading flocks of LOTR fans away from Tolkien. But the source will always be Tolkien. That will never change.

What has changed is that LOTR will forevermore be associated with all the key players in the films (PJ, Howard Shore, Viggo, Elijah, Ian McKellan, etc.) the same way it has been associated with Christopher Tolkien since his father passed away. They are all modern-day myth-makers.

When he wrote the LOTR, Tolkien said he wanted to write a mythology for England. For better or worse, Tolkien got his wish the day he signed over the movie rights to LOTR. Like all the great world mythologies of old, the mythology of the Lord of the Rings continues to evolve with new storytellers.

Melko Belcha

11-26-2003, 12:38 PM

LotR is not a mythology and neither is Star Wars. Both worlds are created by a single person. Mythology is the ancient religious beliefs of cultures, LotR and Star Wars are fictional stories. No matter my feelings or thoughts about Tolkien's work, it will always be Tolkien's work, not mine. The same goes with SW, I hate Episode 1 & 2, I do not like where GL is going with his story, but it is his story and I have no right to tell him how to handle his story. The same goes with Tolkien, reading the HoME series I like some of his older ideas more then the ones he choose to keep, but it is his story and his decision, not mine, it is not my world or my story.

Just because I heard a song or read a book that changed my life, does that mean I own the song or book? No. It always belongs to the person who created it, no matter the impact it has on me or anybody else.

squinteyedsoutherner

11-26-2003, 12:40 PM

What's your take on this?

That for some reason you have a deep insecurity over the fact that many Tolkien book fans have problems with (all of, or parts of) the films. That this drives you to constantly start threads that will ultimately lead to discussions of how Jackson has in some way usurped Tolkien.

“Jackson improved Tolkien”,
“changed the mythology”
“brought more skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his”
"it no longer belongs to its original author"
-And on and on and on.

You claim to be a fan of the book, but as soon as the arguments get heated your contempt for the author, his family and his story clearly shine through.

“It won't happen in Christopher Tolkien's lifetime but once the old coot finally kicks the bucket and one of his more enlightened kin takes over the family business, I could see the estate selling the film rights to the Silmarillion for mega-bucks.”

“ Why didn't a mortally wounded little Frodo ride to the fords on that big white horse all by himself like in the books”

“I can't wait to see what improvements Jackson and Co. make to TTT!!!”

So here we go again, I’m sure this thread will produce some more of your insightful words. This is currently my personal favorite, it’s old, but still a classic.

"Arwen? Using her in the flight to the ford was a stroke of genius."

Priceless.

Black Breathalizer

11-26-2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
for some reason you have a deep insecurity over the fact that many Tolkien book fans have problems with (all of, or parts of) the films. I suspect the real insecurities run on the other side of the fence here. Don't worry, squinty. People will always love Tolkien and the books too.

jerseydevil

11-26-2003, 10:28 PM

squinteyedsoutherner - very good points.

BB - Lord of the Rings is NOT a mythology as Ruinel has stated.

mythology - a body of myths, as that of a particular people.

myth - a traditional or legendary story.

See - Beowulf, King Arthur - those are myths. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars are not myths.

There is one person that Lord of the Rings belongs to - and that is Tolkien. It does not belong to Christopher Tolkien or Jackson - or anyone else. The only true Lord of the Rings is the book.

Just get over it already BB. In regards to the Jeff Giles supposed comment - if fans are more eager for Jackson's Middle Earth than Tolkiens - then they aren't fans of Lord of the Rings. They are simply Jackson fans - many are simple fan-girls who will move on 6 months after RotK leaves the theaters. If you look in the mirror you will see an example of one these psuedo Lord of the Rings fans. These "fans" are characterized by ass kissing tendencies toward Jackson, complete ignorance of the books, and a condescending attitude toward people who see the movies for what they are - "dumbed down hollywood action flicks".

I'm really beginning to think BB that the books were just too difficult for you to read or you didn't understand them. Now that you have watched the training wheel version Jackson put on the screen - you may actually be able to get on the big boy's bike and read the REAL Lord of the Rings. You may just be able to follow it a little bit better now. Just don't get too confused with Arwen not saving Frodo at the Ford and Aragorn not running from his heritage.

Ringil

11-26-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In the latest issue of Newsweek, Jeff Giles points out that many fans are more eager for Jackson's vision of Middle Earth than of JRR Tolkien's. I think this kind of comment is the reason behind many Tolkien fans hatred of Peter Jackson. They see Jackson as the Pied Piper leading flocks of LOTR fans away from Tolkien. But the source will always be Tolkien. That will never change.

BB, One would have to be pretty dense to think that real fans of the real thing, i.e., JRRT's LOTR, would care that millions of dim bulbs might like a very simplified product that their simple minds can passively absorb without any real effort.

Personally, if the masses flocked to JRRT's books, I'd have to reconsider whether they were as good as I thought they were.

Ringil

11-26-2003, 11:02 PM

BB posted:

A pertinent quote from JRR Tolkien taken from page 8 of Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."

***********************
Is there any relevance to the fact that the very next (and last) word in the paragraph partially quoted by BB is "Absurd"?

Or that the first part of the same paragraph is "Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had in mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story -- the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendor from the vast backcloths ...".

The quotes are from The Letters of JRRT, #131, an 18+ page letter discussing the Silmarillion and LOTR, and their relationship.

It seems obvious to me that Tolkien was contrasting the high and somewhat uncertain legends of the First Age (and before) with the well-defined and detailed near-history of LOTR. One could hardly call LOTR "sketched".

In any case, even the quote doesn't give license for significant changes from crystal-clear, detailed descriptions of characters and events.

smaug_the_magnificent

11-26-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I suspect the real insecurities run on the other side of the fence here. Don't worry, squinty. People will always love Tolkien and the books too.

somehow I don't think he's all that worried... it's the most read book in the history of mankind save the bible, and its relevance & popularity will continue to wax for ever & anon

a movie's ability to endure favourably though is always less certain

I think, much like Lucas has done with his revised definitive versions of the original star wars trilogy, Jackson would do well on into the future to make his 3-hour theatrical cuts far more difficult to access commercially (vis-a-vis television releases, future dvd editions etc) & in so doing establish the extended editions as the definitive versions of the trilogy ... today, it is nigh on in possible to purchase in stores the original star wars movies as they would've appeared in 1977, '80 & '83 respectively, so hopefully peter could do the same..

funnily enough, the star wars' precedent could be seen as a bad example because the small additions Lucas made were unnecessary indulgences which the original films could have done without - of course in the case of the lord of the rings, things are very different as we all know.. the extended series in my opinion saves the trilogy in many respects & should better help to ensure the film production will at least in some way be remembered for years to come like the books always will be..

Nurvingiel

11-27-2003, 11:42 PM

I think that Tolkien's works can easily be considered mythology. He will only cease to "own" them in 1000 years, when people have forgotten he wrote them. No one knows who wrote the first Arthurian legend, and no one "owns" the idea. Tolkien will reach the same level in time.

jerseydevil

11-27-2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I think that Tolkien's works can easily be considered mythology. He will only cease to "own" them in 1000 years, when people have forgotten he wrote them. No one knows who wrote the first Arthurian legend, and no one "owns" the idea. Tolkien will reach the same level in time.
No - because first they didn't have copyrights then - second the Arthurian legends were oral histories that developed into legends. That is what makes a myth. The only way that people will forget who wrote Lord of the Rings is if the Western Civilization collapses or the world is destroyed.

mithrand1r

11-27-2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - because first they didn't have copyrights then - second the Authrorian legends were oral histories that developed into legends. That is what makes a myth. The only way that people will forget who wrote Lord of the Rings is if the Western Civilization collapses or the world is destroyed.

Are you sure? ;)

Politicians count on people having a short memory (time after time after time ...)

GrayMouser

11-28-2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

What has changed is that LOTR will forevermore be associated with all the key players in the films (PJ, Howard Shore, Viggo, Elijah, Ian McKellan, etc.) the same way it has been associated with Christopher Tolkien since his father passed away. They are all modern-day myth-makers.

Until the next version.

I don't particularly associate LOTR with any of the people involved in the film, but then I read it many times over many years before the movie came out.

Do you associate Hamlet with Mel Gibson, Kenneth Branagh, or Laurence Olivier? No, of course it's Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson that's associated with it forevermore - he did the first film version in 1913.

Who is Dracula? Ebenezer Scrooge? Elizabeth Bennett?

I suspect that 100 years from now people will be comparing the 2103 LOTR remake to the classic versions from 2072 and 2049-

And PJ and co. may be as well remembered as Bela Lugosi or as forgotten as poor Sir Johnston.

But the book....

The Gaffer

11-28-2003, 05:34 AM

If I understand it correctly, copyright only extends for the life of the author plus 50 years. So, unless the music industry succeeds in re-writing the statute books because they want to be able to make millions out of Elvis indefinitely, the LOTR books will become public domain in the near future.

I would imagine this spawning loads of dodgy fan fiction (it already has). However, there's such a rich bedding of detail in the LOTR world, and so many unanswered questions from the story, that I could see it providing film-makers and writers with endless inspiration.

THe trick, of course, will be to filter out the kak.

jerseydevil

11-28-2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
If I understand it correctly, copyright only extends for the life of the author plus 50 years. So, unless the music industry succeeds in re-writing the statute books because they want to be able to make millions out of Elvis indefinitely, the LOTR books will become public domain in the near future.
I was going to say that the copyrights have a finite life. It still won't make LotR into a myth - since the original author will always be known. Dracula isn't a myth nor a legend - but vampires are.

The Gaffer

11-28-2003, 06:01 AM

Good analogy. Vampire myths pre-date Bram Stoker; I suppose you could argue that Elvish myths pre-date Tolkien (e.g. Tuatha de Danaan).

Yes, I would imagine that the original (book) would remain as a touchstone for subsequent fiction.

I was a big fan of the radio serialisation with Ian Holm as Frodo (probably because it was on just after I read the book). I reckon it would lend itself well to that format on screen.

Cirdan

11-29-2003, 12:44 AM

One could forget Tolien owns LotR only if he can't see that while Jackson and hundreds of other people using $300 million dollars of resources to make a copy of an existing work whileTolkien created the original on his own in his spare time from his full time job. That person might not be able to see the forest for the trees either. Modern mythology is an oxymoron.

Nurvingiel

11-29-2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - because first they didn't have copyrights then - second the Arthurian legends were oral histories that developed into legends. That is what makes a myth. The only way that people will forget who wrote Lord of the Rings is if the Western Civilization collapses or the world is destroyed. And in another 1500 years, who knows what could happen?

Okay, maybe LotR isn't exactly comparable with Arthurian legends. But I like to think that no matter what else was forgotten, Tolkien's works would live on.

Black Breathalizer

11-29-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Modern mythology is an oxymoron. Wrong again, Cirdan. Look up mythology in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. You may not post often, but when you do at least you're consistent. :)

Cirdan

11-29-2003, 11:33 AM

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:

Jumbo shimp is an oxymoron. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it is just a stretch of the traditional meaning of jumbo. So I guess I'm consistently right.:p

Nurvingiel

12-02-2003, 02:10 AM

This is a nitpick, but it does say "typically". This means there can be exceptions. I felt that they were myths, because they have a similar impact on me as Arthurian legends, which is the definitive myth in my mind.

There is definately a grey area though, and Tolkien doesn't fit into any box.

jerseydevil

12-02-2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
This is a nitpick, but it does say "typically". This means there can be exceptions. I felt that they were myths, because they have a similar impact on me as Arthurian legends, which is the definitive myth in my mind.

There is definately a grey area though, and Tolkien doesn't fit into any box.
Myths and legends aren't defined by the feeling it gives you. A myth and legend as I said - is like vampires, however Dracula is not a myth, although Vlad the Impaler can be considered part myth (even though he was also a true person) . This is the same as Beowulf, who was supposed to be a real person.

Nurvingiel

12-02-2003, 02:28 AM

I'm not saying my personal feelings are the definition, just what I think about it, and that there is a grey area.

Whether it is a myth or not, I think Tolkien owns the idea, even if legal mumbo-jumbo says otherwise. It doesn't necessarily, I just mean that Tolkien will always completely own his works.

Cirdan

12-02-2003, 11:39 AM

There is most certainly a mythology contain within the fictional works of Tolkien. It is, however, still a work intended to be fiction and intended to be considered entertainment and not public property. This another of the fallacies of BB's "modern mythology" label.

This no stand-alone mythology but part of a body of copywritten work and not something that is of the making of popular culture. If we view mythological aspect of the works within the context of the novels then they are, by design, ancient myths, and not modern ones. If we view the myths external to the work then they are modern but fictional and proprietary.

Nurvingiel

12-02-2003, 01:42 PM

Maybe that's what a modern mythology is: a myth that is wholly owned by its author.

Also, unlike most myths, Middle-earth only has one author. That should be a factor to Tolkien's ownership of the idea and his work.

Black Breathalizer

12-02-2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Also, unlike most myths, Middle-earth only has one author. You all are totally missing the point. Middle-Earth doesn't have one author. Alan Lee is an author, John Howe is an author, Ralph Bakshi is an author, and so is Peter Jackson.

We are all authors. Everytime we read the books, we visualize our own Middle-Earths. This is one of the reasons why their is some criticisms of the film here is because Jackson's depiction didn't always jive with your own conceptualizations.

JRR Tolkien created the world but our own imaginations gave it life and have kept it alive. If there was no sense of ownership among the books readers, we wouldn't be having passionate discussions from time to time about what Jackson did or didn't do in adapting the story to the big screen.

jerseydevil

12-02-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You all are totally missing the point. Middle-Earth doesn't have one author. Alan Lee is an author, John Howe is an author, Ralph Bakshi is an author, and so is Peter Jackson.

We are all authors. Everytime we read the books, we visualize our own Middle-Earths. This is one of the reasons why their is some criticisms of the film here is because Jackson's depiction didn't always jive with your own conceptualizations.

JRR Tolkien created the world but our own imaginations gave it life and have kept it alive. If there was no sense of ownership among the books readers, we wouldn't be having passionate discussions from time to time about what Jackson did or didn't do in adapting the story to the big screen.
No - it is you that does NOT understand what a myth is. Middle Earth DOES have one author that is Tolkien. Just like Dracula hass one author and ONE definitive version and that was written by Bram Stoker. If you want to know the REAL Dracula - you have to read the book.

Earniel

12-02-2003, 02:24 PM

zinnite

12-02-2003, 02:28 PM

So, in that sense, then every book and film, and especially books made into films, are so-called modern mythologies.

I have always understood mythlogies as stories explaining things that could not be readily understood by certain peoples at certain times, or as created or embellished "histories" that give certain groups of people something special or extraordinary with which to set themselves apart from others (a sort of proto-nationalism, if you will).

I know that's a pretty broad brush to paint with and that exceptions abound, but, from my limited education as far as mythology goes, most are based on some sort of facts or events that did happen, and the stories were extended and embellished through time. In that sense, 'Gone with the Wind' is more of a modern mythology than LOTR.

squinteyedsoutherner

12-02-2003, 02:47 PM

Alan Lee is an author, John Howe is an author, Ralph Bakshi is an author, and so is Peter Jackson. We are all authors.

There's one for the top 10 list.

Nurvingiel

12-02-2003, 02:48 PM

Middle-earth does have one author - Tolkien. The other guys interpreted his work in varous different forms of media, but they did not create any part of Middle-earth themselves. They are artists, not the author.

Again I'm going to compare to something we all agree is a mythology - Arthurian legends.

No one person made the definitive Arthurian legend, and really, there are many ways, not one, to tell this story. The works of Sir Thomas Mallory and T.H. White are regarded as the two definitive Arthurian legends. Many people have written interpretations of their works, and many other authors have created legends of their own. However, neither author completely created his own version. They used ideas from authors who came before them, who did the same to previous authors.

This is different from people interpreting Middle-earth, of which Tolkien is the sole creator.

(I use "legend" and "myth" synonymously, but there's probably a subtle difference.)

Black Breathalizer

12-02-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
Visualising does not always equal creating, BB. Because we visualise during reading and end up making drawings and movies about it doesn't mean we WRITE it. So you're saying that the Orthanc or Helm's Deep depicted in the films is not part of the Middle Earth mythology now? These images are not Tolkiens. Yet these Alan Lee-inspired "embellishments" are now part of most fans' Middle-Earth reality. It is exactly these type of embellishments that characterized the evolution of the ancient mythologies. Some changes are utterly rejected (i.e. Bakshi's Carrot-top Treebeard) while others (like Jackson's Moria) become a part of the newly accepted societial view.

jerseydevil

12-02-2003, 02:55 PM

Nurvingiel

12-02-2003, 02:56 PM

They are part of the mythology. The mythology that Tolkien created. Everyone owns their own work, but Tolkien completely owns the idea of Middle-earth.

If I invent a tool, and you buy one, you own the tool you bought, but I own the idea for the tool as its creator.

I think Tolkien's works can be called a mythology because it's a story that has taken on epic proportions in our society (not because of the movies though). However, it must always be acknowledged that Tolkien is the sole creator and owner of Middle-earth.

(By the way, did you get my emial BB? PM me any time! :))

Earniel

12-02-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
So you're saying that the Orthanc or Helm's Deep depicted in the films is not part of the Middle Earth mythology now? These images are not Tolkiens. Yet these Alan Lee-inspired "embellishments" are now part of most fans' Middle-Earth reality. It is exactly these type of embellishments that characterized the evolution of the ancient mythologies. Some changes are utterly rejected (i.e. Bakshi's Carrot-top Treebeard) while others (like Jackson's Moria) become a part of the newly accepted societial view.

That's something else entirely. I was refering to the fact that the only thing that requires an author is something written down. It's rather absurd IMO to go and name a reader of a work its author. Unless of course that's some rather obscure trick in the English language that I haven't picked up yet. But as far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson is as much the author of Lord of the Rings as me and I know as hell that I AIN'T. LoTR has one and only one author, and a good one, his name is Tolkien.

So whoever designed the Orthanc-tower in the movie is not an author of LoTR. The image will be connected to LoTR, yes I don't deny that. For some people that will be forever the way they picture Orthanc, yes, no point in claiming otherwise (and hey, it's a cool-looking tower anyway ;) ). But UNLIKE Tolkien's writings, that image can always be replaced by another movie, another drawing, another image. Tolkien's description of Orthanc will remain unchanged and -pretty much- final.

It's way too early to go and compare Tolkien's Middle-earth to ancient mythologies that way. Ancient mythologies are without one appointable author and are the cultural or religious heritage of an ancient people. Many of the stories in them have gone through several transformations before they were written down by someone who is seldom their creator, only their collector. The original stories rarely have survived and only mere mentions or tidbits of them can be found in newer versions. These characteristics are hardly applicable IMO on a 'modern' book as LoTR of which the author is widely known in a modern-dayworld where we have things like copyright. Try again in a few centuries or so.

Cirdan

12-02-2003, 05:37 PM

With the exception of a few hard core Mooters the description of ME has never been widely accepted as a description of our history and origins. True mythologies don't start out by saying,"Oh, by the way this is a myth", except in past tense. The ancient Greeks didn't think of there gods as interesting fictional characters used to ellucidate popular beliefs. They were real to them. Christianity is filled with mythologies that billions believe. Tolkien's mythology is a mythology the same way that my son's matchbox car is a car.

Nurvingiel

12-02-2003, 10:35 PM

Many Christians object to their beliefs being referred as 'mythologies', all actively practiced religions would feel this about their beliefs, I imagine.

Your arguments are very convincing Cirdan. I did subscribe to the idea that Tolkien's works were a modern mythology, which was a new idea to me. But you have convinced me to feel they are not mythologies at all.

Cirdan

12-02-2003, 11:10 PM

About the Christians, even the most pious will admit that much of the bible is based on oral tradition. The inclusion of multiple creation and noahic flood stories is proof that these are mythological stories. Some use the term in a more clinical fashion to decribe the stories used to delineate the basic tenets. Many people associate mythology with an overtone of falseness that is objectionable to some. There is reason to believe that many myths are at least based in truth.

I hope I'm not too convincing.:) I think fictional "mythology" is more accurate and generically "mythology" just in casual speech. The phrase "Tolkien's mythology" has valid meaning, but trying to expand it as the equivalent of a culturally derived mythology is not meaningful (although I think I would not be disappointed if everyone thought ME was real:)).

jerseydevil

12-02-2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
(although I think I would not be disappointed if everyone thought ME was real:)).
Well I used to think ME was real or wanted it to be real. I love how Tolkien wrote it as if it was written by the characters - Bilbo - the Red Book of Westmarch (The Hobbit), Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin - the Lord of the Rings. Then Tolkien introduces the Lord of the Rings as if he found it and translated it. I think it was very ingenous and unique for even a Fantasy book.

Nurvingiel

12-03-2003, 12:17 AM

Don't worry Cirdan, I'm not relegating Tolkien down to an ordinary story. I realized after my own post the difference between a legend and a myth.

Just because it's based on oral traditions doesn't make something a myth, especially if it's part of someone's religion. Mosts religions are based at least in part, but their holy scritures aren't just myths. They're something people believe exist, either spiritually, physically, or both. If ancient Greeks who believed in Zeus as a god were still around, I wouldn't call their tales of him mythology either.

Cheers, N

Cirdan

12-03-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I used to think ME was real or wanted it to be real. I love how Tolkien wrote it as if it was written by the characters - Bilbo - the Red Book of Westmarch (The Hobbit), Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin - the Lord of the Rings. Then Tolkien introduces the Lord of the Rings as if he found it and translated it. I think it was very ingenous and unique for even a Fantasy book.

So true. It's like a literary baroque abstract. Great traditional folklore with modern characters in an avante garde literary style.

That's what's so galling about the changes in the movies. Boyens saying, "Faramir saying 'I wouldn't pick it up if it lay by the side of the road' just can't work." ARRRGGH!! It seemed to work pretty well for Tolkien. He believed that some can exihibit true character, but we MUST have character arc because it's DRAMA! GMAB! Even in life some people change events more than the events change them. I think they are called heroes.

Nurvingiel

12-03-2003, 01:49 AM

In the movie, it was somehow necessary for Faramir to have this huge conflict, and kidnap Frodo then change his mind. In the books, Faramir mentally struggled with himself, but he made the right choice. (Not to say that heroes can't make mistakes.) Faramir and Boromir were character foils in the books.

What's GMAB?

Cirdan

12-03-2003, 05:55 AM

Give Me A Break... I was ad libbing;)

I just finished re-readng TTT and there was more conflict than I remembered, but it was mostly before he knew what IT was Frodo was carrying. The EE did somewhat address the issue but I don't get bringing it that far, then seeing Frodo freak-out, and then senting them off to Mordor. Seems a bit more reckless than setting them free in Ithilien under more certain circumstance.

I will be there on opening day due to morbid curiosity and compulsive behaviors. The spoilers are starting to taint my view, but maybe it's best I'm prepared.