tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post548768006189665458..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Tolkien BluesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-46450208130578058632017-06-25T20:06:46.081+01:002017-06-25T20:06:46.081+01:00I'm a decade late and a bit zonked out to comm...I'm a decade late and a bit zonked out to comment on the main body of this writing (other than, 'I agree'), but...<br /><br />www.tarantupedia.com/map<br /><br />Zoom in on South Africa, there.<br />Warren JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743987856127631574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-91145739407517457492008-02-29T07:47:00.000+00:002008-02-29T07:47:00.000+00:00Short commentary on three subjects in the posts:(1...Short commentary on three subjects in the posts:<BR/><BR/>(1) On Christopher Tolkien: In my opinion he has worked diligently and carefully and with admirable humility. True, not all of his choices have worked as well as he might have wished. But I have always been confident of his scholarship as a painstaking conservator. I am certainly grateful for his efforts to decipher the enormous text-puzzle that his father left behind.<BR/><BR/>(2) Some orcish airhead--who has the nerve to style herself as Arwen--wrote [verbatim]:<BR/><BR/>Tolkien's son is a jerk,he can't write himself. this book is selling only because tolkiens fans are starving for material<BR/><BR/>At least Christopher Tolkien does not use comma splices and knows the basics of capitalization and punctuation. If you are going to be rude, at least try to get the mechanicals correct.<BR/><BR/>(2) The re-issued version of Turin is certainly much superior to the previous presentations. Nevertheless, I personally find the story itself one of Tolkien's least successful tales. Andrew's critique of the "spell of Glaraung" is spot-on: The incest seems undermined by the lack of "inevitability." <BR/><BR/>But the main obstacle to my enjoyment is Turin himself. To me, he wholly lacks sympathetic characteristics: He seems petulant and whiny. He blunders into every trap set for him. He is proud to the point of complete self-absorption He wrecks the lives of everyone who comes in contact with him. He seems, in short, like an ego-maniacal jerk. So when Doom or Fate or Destiny (or dragon-contrivance) brings him down, his fall does not resonate for me. <BR/><BR/>(3) Andrew's comment about "Leaf by Niggle" and "That Hideous Strength" caused a minor disaster. I was drinking coffee when I read it. I tried to laugh and sprayed coffee out of my nose. My keyboard was a mess.Fenwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16129172912264013760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-49936291613794353372007-10-11T22:46:00.000+01:002007-10-11T22:46:00.000+01:00During the re-write, Tolkien becomes worried about...<I>During the re-write, Tolkien becomes worried about where the Dwarves got their musical instruments from, and what happened to them when they set off on their journey: has any reader ever noticed or worried about that kind of detail?</I><BR/><BR/>Reading The Hobbit in Spanish recently (rather slowly) I did actually wonder about that.<BR/><BR/>Of course, in the dozen times I had read it in English previously, it never crossed my mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-68872747558698005462007-10-11T08:07:00.000+01:002007-10-11T08:07:00.000+01:00A minor quibble; Nienor threw herself off a canyon...A minor quibble; Nienor threw herself off a canyon-edge into a river, not the sea. I just finished "The Children of Hurin"; a good read, though sad. I also second your note on Christopher, his humility and willingness to admit error does stand out in the books he's published, and many happy hours have I spent immersed in the First Age of Middle-Earth thanks to his efforts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-15440716815586490262007-09-05T11:43:00.000+01:002007-09-05T11:43:00.000+01:00The debate is surely not whether Balrogs have wing...The debate is surely not whether Balrogs have wings. Surely, it's whether they have carpet slippers. <B>flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/slippers.htm </B>Nick Mazonowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01672027642700116849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-35581884601426540752007-08-30T12:38:00.000+01:002007-08-30T12:38:00.000+01:00I would like to add that I think Christopher Tolki...I would like to add that I think Christopher Tolkien in general is very true to his father's work.<BR/><BR/>A quote from Tolkien:<BR/>“Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better<BR/>fantasy will it make. If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion.”Lars Konzackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642711100378925950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-62998128391862608782007-08-30T00:50:00.000+01:002007-08-30T00:50:00.000+01:00Honestly, I don't think that anyone who knows anyt...Honestly, I don't think that anyone who knows anything about the material has any hostility to Christopher Tolkien at all. There are doubtless some silly people who honestly believe that he's publishing his father's shopping lists and doodles, but anyone whose actually taken the trouble to open one of his books can see that he's a diligent -- and actually rather modest and self-effacing -- scholar. (Maybe there are sixteen or seventeen people who think that the Silmarillion SHOULD have been a sequel to "Lord of the Rings" and sub-consciously blame Christopher because it is not...)Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-44838848168974037672007-08-29T17:30:00.000+01:002007-08-29T17:30:00.000+01:00Lars Konzack said...Tolkien actually says in his e...<I>Lars Konzack said...<BR/>Tolkien actually says in his essay (which I think you should read straight<BR/>away) that instead of talking about suspension of disbelief, we should actually<BR/>focus on how to believe the story. We should focus on belief. </I><BR/><BR/>You may well be right it’s worth reading! But my immediate response would be to<BR/>say I don’t believe in the existence of hobbits and dragons, and bunging in an<BR/>appendix and some fancy-looking maps ain’t going to change my mind.<BR/><BR/>I suspect you’re not really counterposing belief to disbelief, but to<BR/>knowledge. “I know there aren’t Hobbits but feel them just like they’re alive”<BR/>etc. Personally, I find this ‘I feel it to be true, so it doesn’t matter if I<BR/>know better’ business not only fuzzy thinking, but something which often<BR/>becomes very dangerous.<BR/><BR/><I>Tolkien wanted his readers to feel, but he also wanted his readers to think<BR/>at the same time. He was tired of literature that only made the reader feel a<BR/>vivid fiction, but wasn't satisfactory for the rational mind. </I><BR/><BR/>This is certainly true, though ironically Brecht used exactly the opposite<BR/>effects for precisely the same reason. He wanted to continually remind the<BR/>audience his plays were plays, to the extent of having costume changes in full<BR/>view of the audience, because he figured this would engage their critical<BR/>senses rather than seduce them into stupefaction.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think this is the same thing as suspension of disbelief. What interests<BR/>me about Tolkien (Lord of the Rings at any rate) is not his hypnotic tricks<BR/>over Hobbit-life but his ruminations on the nature of power. Similarly, to<BR/>return to my Dalek example, my suspension of disbelief is not seriously broken<BR/>in Genesis of the Daleks by being told the Kaleds should really have been<BR/>called the Dals. My suspension of disbelief is broken by all the bloody stories<BR/>in which the Daleks are merely marauding killing machines spouting<BR/>catchphrases, as this has nothing to do with my conception of what Dalek<BR/>stories are ‘about’ and bores me witless. It’s the difference between the<BR/>offside rule and deciding you could get the ball better in the opponents’ net<BR/>if you were inside a tank.<BR/><BR/><I>Andrew Rilstone wrote:<BR/><BR/>This can be a literary blemish, in my opinion: when Frodo tries to work out how<BR/>he has lost four days between crossing the ford and waking up in Rivendell,<BR/>there's a sense of the author "showing us his workings" un-necessarily.) </I><BR/><BR/>Fan-fic in particular seems to confuse this amassing of detail with atmosphere<BR/>or conviction. Most of the time its just busy-work, like nervous liars giving<BR/>themselves away by talking too much.<BR/><BR/><I>He says that any fool can writer "there was a green sun", but only a skilful<BR/>story teller can make the green sun credible: but surely he didn't mean that<BR/>this necessarily required knowledge of astronomy, optics, atmospherics etc? He<BR/>merely meant that it had to be done with a special kind of conviction. </I><BR/><BR/>True enough, but a decent storyteller has more than skill. I am perfectly<BR/>entitled to ask “is this green sun just a gimmick? If this green-sun land of<BR/>yours is but a set of string-beaded gimmicks, and visiting there would tell me<BR/>nothing of my own yellow-sunned land, I am better employed spending my evening<BR/>getting on with the dusting, thanks all the same.”<BR/><BR/><I>Some people seem almost to be communists with respect to literature; as if<BR/>"He wrote it to make money" is a terrible thing to say about a writer. </I><BR/><BR/>Honestly, I never said a word!<BR/><BR/>Rather than Yoko Ono, Christopher Tolkien seems to be more painted as a Stan<BR/>Lee figure, meddling with a great man’s works and making cash from it. (Of<BR/>course this is helped by Christopher coming in further after the event.) People<BR/>don’t like the idea art and commerce can co-exist, as this implies the rarefied<BR/>world of artistry is crossing over with our tawdry one. Some psychologists<BR/>theorise babies conceive of two mothers, a ‘good’ giving mother and a ‘bad’,<BR/>disciplining one. Similarly, fans split off Lee as the ‘bad’ side of Kirby, the<BR/>one who wanted fans to pay for their comics.<BR/><BR/>PS Having recently compared Tolkien to Bunel and to Brecht, I will shortly<BR/>liken him to Jimi Hendrix’s habit of playing guitar with his teeth, Chairman<BR/>Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the dance routines employed by Girls Aloud. Please<BR/>stay tuned…Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-22752469898743399202007-08-29T14:30:00.000+01:002007-08-29T14:30:00.000+01:00Bluejo:Clearly, Tolkien could NOT have written "Le...Bluejo:<BR/><BR/>Clearly, Tolkien could NOT have written "Leaf by Niggle" since he disliked allegory in all it's manifestations. <BR/><BR/>I think that "Niggle" is a Tolkien book written by C.S Lewis, in the same way that "That Hideous Strength" is a C.S Lewis book written by Charles Williams. <BR/><BR/>Or possibly vice versa.<BR/><BR/>Lars / Gavin<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, Tolkien also uses a game to illustrate the difference between "secondary belief" and "suspension of disbelief". He says that he doesn't care for cricket, but that if he has to watch a game, he can "suspend disbelief" by, e.g pretending for the sake of argument that he would like to see Oxford beat Cambridge. The true cricket fan, on the other hand is "in an enchanted state". <BR/><BR/>The difference seems to be that the non-enchanted person has to think "Ah yes, in this game, it is a good thing to hit a ball to a boundary" where the enchanted person just sees someone hitting a six. It's the difference between learning a foreign language, and translating everything back into English, and being so fluent in the language that you stop hearing the "words" and just hear their meanings.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that Tolkien implied that there was a connection between "secondary belief" and "reason". All he says is that <I>"The story teller makes a Secondary World that your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true", it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from the outside." </I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that he implies that detailed world-building -- maps, calendars, time-tables, etc -- are the best, or the only, way to produce Secondary Belief. After all, he's talking about classical fairy-tales which are much closer in style to "The Hobbit" than "The Lord of the Rings".<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that he creates Secondary Belief in "The Hobbit" by using a number of purely literary techniques -- largely, he uses tone-of-voice and authorial persona to talk about Dragons, dwarves, elves etc as if no-one had ever doubted that they are real. He talks about trolls as if they are fact of life that the reader happens never to have bumped into and may need to be informed about ("yes, I am afraid trolls do talk like that..."); he knows more about Gandalf than we do, but there are other people who know more about Gandalf than he does. In "The Lord of the Rings", the trick is done much more by a providing a critical apparatus: an introduction and an appendix, footnotes, and a story which really hangs together as history. (This can be a literary blemish, in my opinion: when Frodo tries to work out how he has lost four days between crossing the ford and waking up in Rivendell, there's a sense of the author "showing us his workings" un-necessarily.) <BR/><BR/>He says that any fool can writer "there was a green sun", but only a skillful story teller can make the green sun credible: but surely he didn't mean that this necessarily required knowledge of astronomy, optics, atmospherics etc? He merely meant that it had to be done with a special kind of conviction. <BR/><BR/>The Later Tolkien seems to have found it impossible to enter into Secondary Belief in a flat earth, a dome shaped sky, stars that were really jewels, an island that was dragged across the sea like a ferry, and so on. He decided that it was necessary to completely rethink the works of the Early Tolkien to eliminate these elements. Some people think that the proposed new versions would have had merits in their own right. (John Garth, on the other hand, argues that the Very Early "Lost Tales" mythology is superior to the versions we have got used to from the-book-now-called-the-Silmarillion). But the Older Tolkien's theory that the Younger Tolkien's works didn't work because Moon-Boats don't fit in with what we know of astronomy is, I think, simply wrong. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, I have personally never felt that the "Lord of the Rings" is spoiled because there is no historical period during which the world was flat and therefore there can't be any Undying Lands for Frodo to go to. <BR/><BR/>Louise<BR/><I>I think it's natural to be suspicious of posthumous editors. Either because the work they produce is no longer really that of the original author, or because you feel the work they produce is that of the original author and their own contribution is trivial.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that Christopher Tolkien now agrees with this point: he thinks that it was wrong to publish the-book-we-now-call-the-Silmarillion under Tolkien's name, since it wasn't wholly Tolkien's work: even though all the editors did was select material, iron out obvious inconsistencies, and compose bridging passages. (Given thirty years to think about, he also thinks that some of his editorial decisions were positively wrong.) <BR/>This is why "History of Middle-earth" arguably goes to far the other way: printing Tolkien's texts in what ever incomplete form he left them in, and then adding footnotes and commentaries to help the reader work out what is going on. Whatever else you say about the "History" books, you are never in any doubt which bits are Tolkien Snr and which bits are Tolkien Jnr. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that <I> as a matter of fact </I> Tolkien left multiple, unfinished and contradictory versions of the First and Second Age material, and therefore, <I>as a matter of fact</I> Christopher has to make decisions about how to present them. There were other possible ways of doing it: he might have produced one big book with different versions of the same story in different columns. He might have produced one of those "critical editions" with a few lines of text on each page, surrounded by footnotes pointing out each "variant reading". He might have printed Tolkien's final version of each story, and added a long appendix to each chapter containing all the other versions. He might have just edited the various MSS and left us to work out how they fitted together for themselves. There's no right answer: but we are stuck with awkward facts that <BR/><BR/>1: The story of Beren and Luthein is worth hearing but <BR/><BR/>2: Tolkien didn't produce a single, final version of the story. <BR/><BR/>"The History of the Hobbit" and the "Lord of the Rings" sections of "History of Middle-earth" are a different matter, because here you are reading passages that Tolkien explicitly rejected (although he preserved the material and indeed sold the MSS to a library.) But, even hear there are fuzzy grey areas: <I>Tolkien</I> intended the "Lord of the Rings" to finish with an elderly Sam reading to his children from the Red Book, but was persuaded by his publisher to drop this section. Surely there is some interest in reading this final chapter, partly to find out how Tolkien imagined the adolescent Elanor Gamgee, and partly to find out what excellent judgment publishers sometimes have. <BR/><BR/>Tolkien deleted fairly long sections of "hobbit-lore" in the early chapters, not because they weren't "true" but because they held up the action. On their way into Bree, the hobbits were going to have a fairly long conversation about the Big People's funny habit of living in multi-story houses with square windows. People who are interested in this kind of thing will find that this is the kind of thing they are interested in: at any rate, I'm pleased Tolkien filed it away rather than chucking it in the shredder. <BR/><BR/>"Arwen"<BR/>I think you need to ask yourself: "Suppose that everyone knew that Tolkien had left some 10,000 pages of writing about Middle-earth, but that Christopher Tolkien had sat on it for 30 years and not allowed anyone to see it. Would you then be inclined to say "What a good person Christopher is --- keeping all those MSS secret because it would be wicked of him to make money out of his father's reputation." (You could try substituting "John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and "thousands of hours of un-released songs" and see what happens.) Or is the idea that he should have spent years and years deciphering his father's handwriting and then given away the results for free? (Some people seem almost to be communists with respect to literature; as if "He wrote it to make money" is a terrible thing to say about a writer.) <BR/><BR/>At any rate "Publishing one version of a manuscript in 1980, and then deciding to republish it in another form in 2007" seems quite a mild slip. If he had wanted to maximize his income from his father's estate, then he would presumably have licensed Robert Jordon or someone to write "Gandalf the Victorious", "Gandalf the Unconquered", " "Gandalf the Defender."<BR/><BR/><BR/>It occurs to me that the shadows surrounding the Moria Balrog were "like two vast wings"; but problematically, we have also been told that the balrog was "like a great shadow". So if the wings are metaphors for the shadow, what is the shadow a metaphor for?Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-38390579133179485942007-08-29T12:30:00.000+01:002007-08-29T12:30:00.000+01:00Dear Gavin Burrows,Tolkien actually says in his es...Dear Gavin Burrows,<BR/><BR/>Tolkien actually says in his essay (which I think you should read straight away) that instead of talking about suspension of disbelief, we should actually focus on how to believe the story. We should focus on belief.<BR/><BR/>Gavin Wrote:<BR/><I>In other words if a jet-plane did show up in the Hobbit it would not feed but undermine our notion of suspension of disbelief, as it would vie with the internal consistency of reality.</I><BR/><BR/>But in the poetics of suspension of disbelief you could always suspend a bit more, while in the poetics of the internal consisntency of the work the writer would have to come up with some sort of convincing explanation.<BR/><BR/>Tolkien wanted his readers to feel, but he also wanted his readers to think at the same time. He was tired of literature that only made the reader feel a vivid fiction, but wasn't satisfactory for the rational mind. <BR/>Btw. Tolkien convinced Lewis with his poem Mythopoeia that this was the interesting way to work with fiction.<BR/><BR/>Example: In the movie Matrix there is a grande error. It is said that you cannot get energy from the sun. Consequently, you need to get energy from human life. Of course if anyone knows anything about nuclear power this is absolutely not true. Furthermore, humans use more energy than you can squeeze out of their bodies. And what is more, humans are indirectly using sun-energy from plants.<BR/><BR/>When I saw this movie, it was obvious they hadn't thought about this. They were simply giving a vivid imagination of the future. I had to suspend my disbelief in order to see the rest of the movie.<BR/><BR/>Had they said instead that they needed human brain power in order to make the Matrix work, then it would have made sense. Then the movie would have had the internal consistency of the world, I would have preferred.<BR/><BR/>When Tolkien wonders about the moon cycles of Arda. He is doing more than just finding some small errors in his book. Because... You could say that the real central character of his work is actually the world Arda. To know about the moon cycles is to delve into the psychology of this character.<BR/><BR/>/LarsLars Konzackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642711100378925950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-44389206472510116812007-08-28T17:57:00.000+01:002007-08-28T17:57:00.000+01:00Lars Konzack said...I must add that in "On Fairy-S...<I>Lars Konzack said...<BR/><BR/>I must add that in "On Fairy-Stories" Tolkien says he does not like the concept<BR/>of Suspension of Disbelief. And with good reason. He believes in Reason.<BR/><BR/>The Suspension of Disbelief concept tells you to stop believing because<BR/>anything will anything will happen. One moment there is a hobbit the next<BR/>moment there is a dragon. And if a jet-plane showed up you just had to accept<BR/>it. </I><BR/><BR/>I haven’t read the essay you quote so I’m not sure whether I’m disagreeing with<BR/>you or Tolkien here, but I feel at least one of you is misinterpreting the<BR/>concept of suspension of disbelief. As Wikipedia puts it:<BR/><BR/><I>Suspension of disbelief is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize<BR/>people's relationships to art. It refers to the alleged willingness of a reader<BR/>or viewer to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are<BR/>fantastic, impossible, or otherwise contradictory to "reality". It also refers<BR/>to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so<BR/>that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises…<BR/><BR/><BR/>Further, inconsistencies or plot holes that violate the initial premisees,<BR/>established canon, continuity, or common sense, are often viewed as breaking<BR/>this agreement. </I><BR/><BR/>In other words if a jet-plane did show up in the Hobbit it would not feed but<BR/>undermine our notion of suspension of disbelief, as it would vie with the<BR/>internal consistency of the work.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me we use the specific term ‘suspension of disbelief’, as opposed<BR/>to a more straightforward term like ‘belief’, for a reason. We accept it like<BR/>we would accept a set of game-rules; for example, in a game touching a post<BR/>making you ‘home’ and no longer able to be caught. Of course this is just a<BR/>sport rule grafted onto games. Even as children we’re aware a post cannot offer<BR/>you any real protection, it’s not like a locked and bolted door, but we accept<BR/>the rule for the sake of the furtherance of the game. It doesn’t matter if the<BR/>rule is <I>unbelievable, </I> so long as it is <I>consistent. </I><BR/><BR/>You can see the difference if you contrast someone like Tolkien with a<BR/>surrealist film-maker like Bunel. For Bunel, ‘inconsistences’ were the<BR/><I>point.</I> If Bunel had filmed The Hobbit, there may well have been<BR/>jetplanes in it. Bunel does not aim to make his donkey-draped pianos or<BR/>ant-ridden wounds <I>believable,</I> he cares only to make them <I>vivid. </I><BR/>Bunel deliberately with-holds our ability to suspend disbelief by with-holding<BR/>the internal rules that would allow us to make sense of what he’s created. What<BR/>we see is unbelievable, yet undeniably happening.<BR/><BR/>…of course it’s not an either/or choice, and most come somewhere between these<BR/>two extremes. It’s a familiar trope of horror films to create monsters which<BR/>seem to defy rationality, only to reveal the rules which underpin them nearer<BR/>the end. Sometimes finding the monster’s Rosebud is sufficient in itself to<BR/>dispel it – “I know what you really are” etc.<BR/><BR/>Finally, fans seem particularly fixated with seeing the game-rules as a book of<BR/>lore where what really matters is keeping the spirit of the game alive.<BR/>Personally I care very little if the Kaleds were once called the Dals, provided<BR/>if the theme and tone remains consistent. I would care more if the Daleks<BR/>turned into a song-and-dance troupe.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-39712225342298229462007-08-27T08:56:00.000+01:002007-08-27T08:56:00.000+01:00I am fully prepared to demonstrate with my own bod...I am fully prepared to demonstrate with my own body that Balrogs do indeed have wings, but submitting myself to a trial by combat.Brad Ellisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17250422635264839079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-45457946234886522672007-08-25T05:31:00.000+01:002007-08-25T05:31:00.000+01:00I must add that in "On Fairy-Stories" Tolkien says...I must add that in "On Fairy-Stories" Tolkien says he does not like the concept of Suspension of Disbelief. And with good reason. He believes in Reason.<BR/><BR/>The Suspension of Disbelief concept tells you to stop believing because anything will anything will happen. One moment there is a hobbit the next moment there is a dragon. And if a jet-plane showed up you just had to accept it.<BR/><BR/>As an alternative Tolkien calls for an Internal Consistency of Reality. With this way of thinking, there is Reason behind what is going on. There is a Reason why Balrog should have wings or not. <BR/><BR/>That is why there is a good Reason for Tolkien that he kept working so hard to make his world function based on his academic knowledge about literature, language, and world creation in general.<BR/><BR/>He wanted his Sub-creation to become as real as the Creation itself even though he knew he could never be Creator - only Sub-Creator.Lars Konzackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642711100378925950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-3748252025200523962007-08-24T14:27:00.000+01:002007-08-24T14:27:00.000+01:00The very strange thing is that he must have known ...The very strange thing is that he must have known that, or he couldn't have written "Leaf by Niggle".Jo Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04336386420525045949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-13238420250872123902007-08-23T17:54:00.000+01:002007-08-23T17:54:00.000+01:00I think it's natural to be suspicious of posthumou...I think it's natural to be suspicious of posthumous editors. Either because the work they produce is no longer really that of the original author, or because you feel the work they produce <B>is</B> that of the original author and their own contribution is trivial. <BR/><BR/>It is particularly easy to criticise Christopher Tolkien, because of the sheer quantity of JRRT stuff that he's published. <BR/><BR/>But Middle Earth would be poorer without either the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales regardless of what CT's input was into those, and if the Children of Hurin is readable I'll be happy to read it. <BR/><BR/>I'd rather not read the early versions though; it is quite interesting to know that Thorin was once called Gandalf but doesn't help the whole suspension of disbelief thing. If CT can give me consistent and developed Tolkien mythos I'll be grateful.<BR/><BR/>Shadows like wings. And then the reference to wings a couple of paras on is clearly extending the metaphor. Or not. Anyway, they don't come with the flying ability, apparently.Louise Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120364497851844081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-19664582044078139732007-08-23T16:29:00.000+01:002007-08-23T16:29:00.000+01:00Arwen Undómiel - “balrogs do NOT have wings.If you...Arwen Undómiel - “balrogs do NOT have wings.<BR/>If you're wondering who i am,barging in like that.....find out<BR/>nice post though,i was googling tolkien when i saw ur blog.<BR/>Tolkien's son is a jerk,he can't write himself. this book is selling only because tolkiens fans are starving for material”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Wow, and I thought I was a harsh critique of Chris T, he is after all the last of the inklings (Or is it younglings? I never can remember.) The problem with The Children of Hurin <BR/>Is (as the name implies) it is really only interesting as it relates to the broader epic of the descendants of Galdor (I personally would prefer to hear more about Huor and Rian). As a protagonist Turin is not very interesting. Nienor is somewhat interesting until she looses her memory. But then when does regain her memory she does something, well rather craven.<BR/>Any way, what makes you so sure balrogs do not have wings?A. L. Bracketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04279366590950486985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-11288409830659142772007-08-23T12:49:00.000+01:002007-08-23T12:49:00.000+01:00Another great essay: it shines through when your h...Another great essay: it shines through when your heart is in it...<BR/><BR/>As for Balrogs, as any phule know:<BR/><BR/>One wing to rule them all,<BR/>One wing to find them,<BR/>One wing to...<BR/><BR/>3 wings, QED.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00060932750731516470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-57774073278846818322007-08-23T11:49:00.000+01:002007-08-23T11:49:00.000+01:00balrogs do NOT have wings.If you're wondering who ...balrogs do NOT have wings.<BR/>If you're wondering who i am,barging in like that.....find out<BR/>nice post though,i was googling tolkien when i saw ur blog.<BR/>Tolkien's son is a jerk,he can't write himself. this book is selling only because tolkiens fans are starving for materialMidnight Sunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11981249405737555521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-78785336655597854502007-08-22T11:37:00.000+01:002007-08-22T11:37:00.000+01:00Personally find the Lhammashttp://en.wikipedia.org...Personally find the Lhammas<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhammas<BR/>to be the best thing prof. Tolkien wrote.<BR/>And, anyway, Gary Gygax says that type VI demons, er, Balors... or something like that have 2 wings!I. Dallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427385974208305067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-90474375991080324202007-08-22T04:55:00.000+01:002007-08-22T04:55:00.000+01:00Can't we just live in peace.As a compromise, we fa...Can't we just live in peace.<BR/><BR/>As a compromise, we fans should all get together <I>make</I> everyone believe that a Balrog has only one wing.Jallanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09587108643251258868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-78035156464706742352007-08-21T22:27:00.000+01:002007-08-21T22:27:00.000+01:00I thought we had settled this, flame Balrogs have ...I thought we had settled this, flame Balrogs have wings slime Balrogs do not.A. L. Bracketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04279366590950486985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-20447091526606552582007-08-21T22:07:00.000+01:002007-08-21T22:07:00.000+01:00No, no, balrogs DO have wings. Peter Jackson conc...No, no, balrogs DO have wings. Peter Jackson conclusively demonstrated this.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-89587407550576374032007-08-21T18:48:00.000+01:002007-08-21T18:48:00.000+01:00Balrogs have no wings. The entire debate is daft....Balrogs have no wings. The entire debate is daft.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00724351538901571299noreply@blogger.com