![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ealgyldenI’ve been thinking about the two LotR movies quite a bit recently while I’ve been wrestling with my Theoden thoughts, and it occurred to me to wonder why the various changes made in the transition from book to screen didn’t bother me that much. Part of it is my feeling that, in general, the changes made have been to the benefit of the movie (because of differences in the media in question, and so forth). And part of it is that I’m just not a book-bound fanatic when it comes to Tolkien. I’m fond of the books; I enjoy reading them and aspects of them fascinate me, but they aren’t "holy writ" to me like they are to some fans (unlike, say, Good Omens. I long for and fear a Good Omens movie). I’ve seen the movies referred to in various places as very long, very expensive AU fanfic, and that way of looking at them works for me. It isn’t an interpretation that had occurred to me on its own, though, so I can’t blame fanfic for my comfort with the changes PJ and co. have made. So instead I’ll blame academia.
I’m an early medieval historian, and one of the fun things about the study of history is that no text can be approached as if it were holy writ. No historical text can be viewed as sacrosanct and inviolable because the act of writing history is inherently biased (in the sense of "from a specific, non-universal viewpoint", not in the common usage sense, though that’s not out of the question). All the stuff that’s ever happened is the past, but it isn’t history. Framing off pieces of that unwieldy mess and recording/examining/analyzing them creates history, and the frame is built from the historian’s bias: what he or she decides is interesting, or worthy of study, or has been too long overlooked, or whatever. The historian chooses to tell a particular story from among any number of possibilities, any one of which could be deemed more interesting or complete or "right" by another historian.
So what does this have to do with the LotR movies? Well, we know from several sources that Tolkien began his foray into world-building by first creating languages (not a surprising approach for a philologist). He then needed someone to speak these languages and someplace for them to live, so he created various peoples and the world they inhabited, Middle Earth (or Arda, if you want to get fancy). Well, there’s no point in having a world full of people, standing around speaking multiple languages and having complex cultures but not doing anything, so the good professor began to take all the interesting things he knew about his new-born world and its inhabitants and wove them into stories. He created a world and its past (and present), then created the world’s history by deciding which stories to tell.
Tolkien occasionally spoke (in letters and such) of his Middle Earth as though it were real, and he were merely its historian (this approach seems particularly evident in the Silmarillion). He wasn’t crazy (well he might have been, but probably not about this)- this is, of course, a fairly common authorial conceit. So why not go along with it? Allow the imagination to accept the reality of Arda (and really, how hard can it be to accept as real a world full of beautiful immortals, four-story elephants, intelligent evil jewelry and the Giant Flaming Eyeball of Death?). The novel The Lord of the Rings becomes the history The Lord of the Rings, complete with the understanding that, as a history, it privileges certain viewpoints, though there may be alternate views that are just as valid. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are both hobbit-POV stories. So imagine how LotR might have sounded if retold from a dwarvish viewpoint. How would the elves be portrayed? Or Gimli, in his position as the lone dwarf in the Fellowship? Would the descriptions of local plant life be replaced with mini-treatises on local geology? Would stoic endurance replace the palpable longing for home that runs through the text?
Anyway. Once you’ve switched to the “Middle Earth is real and LotR is a history” mindset (and you might not want to tell anyone that you have, unless you’re absolutely fearless in the face of hearty mocking. And are, perhaps, a gamer or SCA-er.), it becomes easy to see the movies not as Tolkien-gone-wrong (which I don’t believe anyway, but I know some people do, and vehemently), but as simply another reading of events. There were no elves at Helm’s Deep? Well, maybe they were left out of some sources (for political reasons, because of prejudice, because the annalist was recording rumors and someone forgot to mention them, etc) and therefore they don’t appear in all versions of the story. Faramir was a lamb, as pure and unselfish as Galahad, while his brother was a braggart and a bully? Historians certainly aren’t above showing favoritism towards their subjects, and sometimes events can take on an entirely different cast with the addition of one adjective, or a simple shift in emphasis. And so on down the line.
So there you go. A historian’s approach to reconciling the differences between book and movie. Or, alternatively, the crazy person’s approach. Whichever.
I’m an early medieval historian, and one of the fun things about the study of history is that no text can be approached as if it were holy writ. No historical text can be viewed as sacrosanct and inviolable because the act of writing history is inherently biased (in the sense of "from a specific, non-universal viewpoint", not in the common usage sense, though that’s not out of the question). All the stuff that’s ever happened is the past, but it isn’t history. Framing off pieces of that unwieldy mess and recording/examining/analyzing them creates history, and the frame is built from the historian’s bias: what he or she decides is interesting, or worthy of study, or has been too long overlooked, or whatever. The historian chooses to tell a particular story from among any number of possibilities, any one of which could be deemed more interesting or complete or "right" by another historian.
So what does this have to do with the LotR movies? Well, we know from several sources that Tolkien began his foray into world-building by first creating languages (not a surprising approach for a philologist). He then needed someone to speak these languages and someplace for them to live, so he created various peoples and the world they inhabited, Middle Earth (or Arda, if you want to get fancy). Well, there’s no point in having a world full of people, standing around speaking multiple languages and having complex cultures but not doing anything, so the good professor began to take all the interesting things he knew about his new-born world and its inhabitants and wove them into stories. He created a world and its past (and present), then created the world’s history by deciding which stories to tell.
Tolkien occasionally spoke (in letters and such) of his Middle Earth as though it were real, and he were merely its historian (this approach seems particularly evident in the Silmarillion). He wasn’t crazy (well he might have been, but probably not about this)- this is, of course, a fairly common authorial conceit. So why not go along with it? Allow the imagination to accept the reality of Arda (and really, how hard can it be to accept as real a world full of beautiful immortals, four-story elephants, intelligent evil jewelry and the Giant Flaming Eyeball of Death?). The novel The Lord of the Rings becomes the history The Lord of the Rings, complete with the understanding that, as a history, it privileges certain viewpoints, though there may be alternate views that are just as valid. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are both hobbit-POV stories. So imagine how LotR might have sounded if retold from a dwarvish viewpoint. How would the elves be portrayed? Or Gimli, in his position as the lone dwarf in the Fellowship? Would the descriptions of local plant life be replaced with mini-treatises on local geology? Would stoic endurance replace the palpable longing for home that runs through the text?
Anyway. Once you’ve switched to the “Middle Earth is real and LotR is a history” mindset (and you might not want to tell anyone that you have, unless you’re absolutely fearless in the face of hearty mocking. And are, perhaps, a gamer or SCA-er.), it becomes easy to see the movies not as Tolkien-gone-wrong (which I don’t believe anyway, but I know some people do, and vehemently), but as simply another reading of events. There were no elves at Helm’s Deep? Well, maybe they were left out of some sources (for political reasons, because of prejudice, because the annalist was recording rumors and someone forgot to mention them, etc) and therefore they don’t appear in all versions of the story. Faramir was a lamb, as pure and unselfish as Galahad, while his brother was a braggart and a bully? Historians certainly aren’t above showing favoritism towards their subjects, and sometimes events can take on an entirely different cast with the addition of one adjective, or a simple shift in emphasis. And so on down the line.
So there you go. A historian’s approach to reconciling the differences between book and movie. Or, alternatively, the crazy person’s approach. Whichever.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-03 04:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-03 01:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-03 06:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-03 01:31 pm (UTC)I've always liked the books, but I've never really loved them. Parts of them, yes, but it's always been a pick-and-choose experience for me. Mostly I'm grateful for them, since their existence has lead to the writing of so many books that I do love. The movies, however, I love. Unreservedly. It's refreshing to see the archetypes from the books actually become characters, with depth and emotions and internal lives. Suddenly, Aragorn isn't a flat heroic cliche, Faramir isn't lily-white and miraculously unmarked by his uncomfortable homelife (I loved him at age 12, but he became less interesting with each passing year), Boromir gets to come into his tragic own once he's freed from the fact that his creator really doesn't like him all that much... So, yeah, honestly? I prefer the movies. The books are a bit too "this is the official history, and nothing must offend".
Love the theory-speak, btw. I'm not much of a theorist (and luckily I don't have to be), but there have been times when I've looked back over papers and articles I've written, and had no idea what the heck I've said, or if it were even in English.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 10:26 am (UTC)I hope this *never* happens to me! :) I'm an undergraduate (may or may not continue to the graduate level), and I do have to write tons of essays each semester. Although, I'm not much of a theorist either; so, I hope I'll be able to understand my essays in a couple of years. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-10 02:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 10:24 am (UTC)Really? Throw me some book titles! I'd love to read about feminist utopias! :)
"the emergence of subaltern aporia in the carnivalesque reification of post-colonial discursive modality"
*blinks* What? *blinks* *blinks* ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 05:13 pm (UTC)If you're looking for critical sources, I would be happy to send you my bibliography, but it's ten years outdated...
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 10:22 am (UTC)*has a sudden desire to eat Joan's brain*
;)
For some damn annoying reason, I love Medieval literature. So learning you're a medieval historian made me go *squee*. Btw, which medieval history? English, french, german? I've wanted to write arthurian slash for years now, but I must first find the time to re-read some books.
Btw, I love your approach to the whole book-to-movie translation. :) Fortunately (or not), I haven't read the books, so I'm quite happy with the movies. I prefer the first one of course (damn Tolkien for killing Boromir).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 05:16 pm (UTC)Would love to hear either of your takes on Marie Jakober's The Black Chalice, the book from which I stole my LJ name, about a knight of the Holy Roman Empire and a Holy Blood, Holy Grail-type conspiracy.
*pulling head out again*
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-10 01:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 06:45 pm (UTC)Btw, which medieval history? Generally I work on topics in England, Scandinavia and occasionally northern Francia, from the fifth/sixth centuries up to the early eleventh century (9/10th mostly). Within that framework, I tend to work on monasticism, royal politics, women in positions of power, literacy and the transmission of knowledge, blah blah blah. The only two topics that can consistently pull me out of the early MA and into the "high" MA are Joan of Arc and the Black Death. Not together, of course. ;)
And "yay!" to Arthurian slash! If you ever do write some I'd love love love to read it! I'm actually a bit surprised there isn't more out there, considering how popular Mists of Avalon is among slashers (more so than the actual medieval Arthurian canon, I'd bet. Not enough people read Malory or Chretien these days).
Yeah, darn that Tolkien for treating Boromir so badly! To think that we could have two more movies with Sean in them. Darn it.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-09 06:30 pm (UTC)That said, I would've thought a historian would want to pay attention to context as well as text. Surely it's not too screamingly positivistic to observe that while all texts may or may not be created equal (depending on one's theoretical and/or moral allegiances), all sources are certainly not? A feminist retelling of the life of Fredegund of Soissons may be a fascinating read and an all-around spiffy text, but as a historical source to put up against Gregory, it's not even in the same constellation as, say, Venantius Fortunatus.
By the same token, I'm happy to consider LOTR as one more-or-less contemporary account of the Return of the Shadow and the War of the Ring, but I see Peter Jackson more as a modern revisionist historian, and one who is often scanty on either primary-source evidence or justification for the changes he proposes to the established narrative. So, yeah, it's a fun way to think about the movie, but it doesn't wipe out my irritation at some of the more gratuitous alterations. (Boromir a decent guy? Sure, especially if Merry and Pippin get a perspective in Fellowship. Faramir whitewashed? Possible -- the copy of the Red Book Tolkien translated was copied by one of his descendants, wasn't it? -- but something of a lectio difficilior. Elves at Helm's Deep left out? Not seeing the likelihood or the logic.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-10 02:31 pm (UTC)Surely it's not too screamingly positivistic to observe that while all texts may or may not be created equal (depending on one's theoretical and/or moral allegiances), all sources are certainly not? Not at all. Any responsible scholar would agree with you. I suppose it depends on how much you're willing to trust your translator, since all we have is a "translation". I'm certain I do the good professor a disservice, since he was a careful scholar by all accounts (I read "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics" some years ago and remember being impressed, but it's been a while). So it isn't fair to him that I should tar him with the same brush as other translators and scholars of his generation, some of whom were rather less careful about avoiding inserting their own preoccupations into their translations than they should have been. But that is, of course, just what I have done.
Elves at Helm's Deep left out? Not seeing the likelihood or the logic. Ah, well, my acceptance of that is probably affected by problems in the sources I'm currently working with for something else, problems of the "look sideways and vital things disappear" variety. I have people suddenly turning up present at councils they hadn't been attending a minute ago, important declarations that were made, then weren't, then were again... that sort of thing. I have a whole synod that every reliable source but one fails to mention occurring, but since that one source is the prologue to the major work produced at said synod, obviously it did happen. I'm just not certain why it isn't mentioned elsewhere.
it doesn't wipe out my irritation at some of the more gratuitous alterations. I wouldn't expect it to, since you obviously have a much greater love for the books than I do. Actually, I would be surprised if it worked as well for anyone else as it does for myself. The hard-core book fanatics certainly wouldn't be swayed (and I can hardly blame them), and those who haven't read the books probably wouldn't see the point of the exercise in the first place. I suppose someone like myself, who has read the books but not recently and for whom the details have become blurred, and who has seen the PJ-versions but doesn't worship them as the "best movies ever!!!", might be interested. But maybe not, even then.
Since you obviously have quite a bit of familiarity with the more arcane Tolkien works, and since I don't often get to pick the brains of Tolkien scholars (one of which I emphatically am not), mind if I ask you a question? Did Tolkien ever say, in his letters or elsewhere, what source "Frodo" used for the Rohan episode? Several of the other sources are mentioned, I believe (I seem to recall Gimli being responsible for the information of dwarfs in the Appendices, for example), but I don't remember one for Rohan. Are we to assume it was Aragorn, perhaps? Just out of curiosity, really.