Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 193 posts

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#91

Post by raffraffraff »

resolutebat wrote: post #19

"The Fellowship of the Ring is at least as good as The Thirty-Nine Steps. " For anybody else wondering what The Thirty-Nine Steps is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Nine_Steps

That's not really a fair quote. Having first read your quote, then read the actual piece, I feel duty bound to put your quote in it's full context, which changes it's meaning considerably:

> The first thing that one asks is that the adventure should be various and exciting; in this respect Mr. Tolkien’s invention is unflagging, and, on the primitive level of wanting to know what happens next, The Fellowship of the Ring is at least as good as The Thirty-Nine Steps

He's clearly suggesting that in one very particular respect, he values the 39 Steps so very highly that it can be used as a kind of measuring stick.

It may not seem like such a big deal, but partial quotations of this nature are the source of so much internet misunderstanding and drama these days.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#92

Post by bombcar »

mellosouls wrote: post #48
csallen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the recent commercial depictions of the LotR series… don't watch them? Of course you have the right to criticize and complain about them. But to let their existence "spoil" your enjoyment of the original works seems excessive. The original works were not somehow changed by the creation of new works, and so neither should your ability to enjoy them change.

The original works were not somehow changed by the creation of new works, and so neither should your ability to enjoy them change. Our experience of art is necessarily influenced by the world; works don't just pass pristine and unaltered from their creation into our consciousness. They can be both enriched and cheapened by the cultural detritus they and we float through on the way; whether it's the mythology of an ar…

I mean, it's pretty hard not to imagine Aragorn without seeing Viggo now, unless you've never watched the movies at all.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#93

Post by bombcar »

porknubbins wrote: post #21
andrewstuart wrote: post #10

It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. It was one of the happiest parts of life - to be able to read the books and venture into that world. It's been spoiled for me by the ridiculous movies like The Hobbit (holy god, Peter Jackson turned Dwarves into ridiculous comedy clowns, covered Radagast with birdshit) , the endless licensed garbage and whilst The Lord of The Rings movie was quite good it h…

I felt that the Harry Potter films kind of missed out on what made the books so special. In the books, besides the slowly building adventure/mystery story, all the episodic, mundane day to day drama in the life of the school really felt like living through a school year in a surprisingly realistic way. The movies I saw focused on the adventure and lost a lot of that charm of feeling like you’re back in school alongsi…

Amusingly enough, the silly game recently released captured that better than the movies did (though the first did pretty well), even though the school slide was a bit slap-dash.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#94

Post by bombcar »

gumby wrote: post #51
andrewstuart wrote: post #10

It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. It was one of the happiest parts of life - to be able to read the books and venture into that world. It's been spoiled for me by the ridiculous movies like The Hobbit (holy god, Peter Jackson turned Dwarves into ridiculous comedy clowns, covered Radagast with birdshit) , the endless licensed garbage and whilst The Lord of The Rings movie was quite good it h…

> It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. You might note that the author worked hard with Allen & Unwin to have it printed and offered for sale . If you have the official ‘60s paperbacks from Bellentine you’ll see the back cover is a letter from Tolkien complaining of the unauthorized Ace editions and telling you you should buy only the authorized editions (Ballantine or Houghton Mifflin). It’s b…

It's also arguable that undue concern for commercialization kept the Silmarillion out of print, because he kept trying to bring it to the level of perfection found in the LotR.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#95

Post by wolverine876 »

jdshaffer wrote: post #27

Tom Shippey, a very well known and respected Tolkien scholar gave a talk about the book vs the Peter Jackson movies. It also ended up in an edited version in one of his books (I cannot remember if it was "Tolkien: Author of the Century" or "The Road to Middle Earth".) In short, he argues that Jackson actually did the best he could to present the book in a format that movie studios would accept, and even then was able…

Jackson was the anti-Tolkien. The book and movie stories had the same character names, many of the same events, but otherwise were completely opposite. A few things off the top of my head, great and small:

Tolkien's books were primarily about the corruption of power, and showed that the Good and Wise avoided it. There's the Ring, of course, but also Gandalf traveled around motivating people, rarely showing any magical ability at all. Aragorn's sword was broken until the great test required it. Jackson glorified power.

Tolkien's magic and world were places of beauty, darkness, and art beyond human experience; Tolkien never visualized Sauron, who was left to our imaginations. Jackson's world was of commonplace, manipulative horror film techniques and action hero tropes.

Heck, Tolkien's Gandalf had supreme confidence (for good reason); Jackson's was an anxious old person. Tolkien's Aragorn was the epitome of duty and commitment, always putting life and limb on the line for it; Jackson's didn't want the job!

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#96

Post by bombcar »

propter_hoc wrote: post #74
shrubble wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read The Silmarillion, by chance? It gives a great deal of the background mythology of LOTR.

I have to say it's massively unlikely that someone who read LOTR and disliked it would enjoy the Silmarillion.

I usually dump to the Children of Hurin first, because that's more "readable" - the Silmarillion is very Old Testament and takes some heavy archeology to get the stories out.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#97

Post by vkou »

wolverine876 wrote: post #95
jdshaffer wrote: post #27

Tom Shippey, a very well known and respected Tolkien scholar gave a talk about the book vs the Peter Jackson movies. It also ended up in an edited version in one of his books (I cannot remember if it was "Tolkien: Author of the Century" or "The Road to Middle Earth".) In short, he argues that Jackson actually did the best he could to present the book in a format that movie studios would accept, and even then was able…

Jackson was the anti-Tolkien. The book and movie stories had the same character names, many of the same events, but otherwise were completely opposite. A few things off the top of my head, great and small: Tolkien's books were primarily about the corruption of power, and showed that the Good and Wise avoided it. There's the Ring, of course, but also Gandalf traveled around motivating people, rarely showing any magica…

> Tolkien's Aragorn was the epitome of duty and commitment, always putting life and limb on the line for it; Jackson's didn't want the job!

There's a reason for it. A movie requires the protagonist to undergo a character arc, where their perspective on the world changes.

... Except that in this story, Aragorn already dealt with all those issues, and by the time of the Fellowship is just doing what he's spent his whole life working up to.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#98

Post by wolverine876 »

Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time: An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them up, reminding them of who they are and their strength rousing them to action (the scene with Theoden is a great example).

How could Tolkien, in the 1940s and 1950s, write a book for the post-2016 era? Remember what he saw as he wrote it: An evil force that heavily used propaganda to spread their horrible ideas, and masses of people not only in Germany or Italy, but the rest of Europe and the US, refusing to acknowledge or oppose the reality of the evil, the grim future; and many even supporting it.

Tolkien arguably turned it into a myth for future generations, like the real-life Trojan War was turned (eventually) into the Iliad and Odyssey.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#99

Post by wolverine876 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #89

Wow. So this is what an actual book review by someone that knows how to actually write looks like. Yes, Tolkien is a literary mastermind, but set that aside for a minute: I feel lucky to have read the review itself. If modern book reviews in mainstream media were still written this well, I think more people would read books!

Modern book reviews are often written by authors. Try the NY Times Book Review, NY Review of Books, or London Review of Books, to start.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#100

Post by wolverine876 »

ajkjk wrote: post #72
pjbster wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two different major gripes. First, the power of the ring is not put into a proper context and, second, the film's exposition ruined the role of Gandalf and undermined the otherworldliness of Galadriel. Let's put the ring into context. Imagine you were walking along and you came across an ordinary looking smartphone. Amazingly it works and you can make calls on it. Anywhere in the world. For free! That's not ba…

"Drivel" seems like a strong word. All that stuff works pretty well, despite how much it annoyed you.

In issues of art, worksforme doesn't resolve the issue.
Post reply on HN