Tolkien related video's.

{{ Always good to hear from Tolkien himself.

Less good I watched this interview with PJ-



Now here's a question- deliberate ommission or lie? My money here is on lie as he knows too much to not know the reason.

At 13.30 he is discussing Tolkiens attempt to rewrite TH to make it more in line with LotR's in tone and feel, and uses that to justify his own additions. But then he goes on to say this, "What I understand Tolkien did then, becuase he was intending to rewrite TH with all this stuff, but he never did for whatever reason."

Thing is we know the reason he never carried on with it, his friend read it and said it no longer felt like TH. The exact same accusation could be made of PJ's films.
So did he not know this genuinely, yet know all the rest about it, or is he lying about not knowing why Tolkien abandonoed it to prevent the same critisicm being levelled at his own additions? }}

That Tolkien interviewer seemed almost insultingly confrontational. Why would a philologist feel guilty about making up a language any more than a planetologist would feel guilty for writing a science fiction story that included planets that conformed to the physical laws of planet formation?

PJ's not a Tolkien scholar. Non-experts have knowledge that is both incomplete and even cherry-picked. I would think he would have read primary sources but not dug into commentary about them. To say that he lied to deflect criticism implies that he's far more conniving than I can buy into.

{{ I say lie. That Tolkien undertook that rewriting is a pretty obscure bit of knowledge in the first place so seems very unlikely he'd know 99% of the story and just happen to not know the one bit that could reflect badly on his own attempt.
Secondly I dont think PJ is a good or natural lier, and he looks shifty as hell when he says it. }}

Ooh

I didn't remember that Elros and Elrond were fostered by Maglor!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Always good to hear from Tolkien himself.

Less good I watched this interview with PJ-



Now here's a question-  deliberate ommission or lie? My money here is on lie as he knows too much to not know the reason.

At 13.30 he is discussing Tolkiens attempt to rewrite TH to make it more in line with LotR's in tone and feel, and uses that to justify his own additions. But then he goes on to say this, "What I understand Tolkien did then, becuase he was intending to rewrite TH with all this stuff, but he never did for whatever reason."

Thing is we know the reason he never carried on with it, his friend read it and said it no longer felt like TH. The exact same accusation could be made of PJ's films.
So did he not know this genuinely, yet know all the rest about it, or is he lying about not knowing why Tolkien abandonoed it to prevent the same critisicm being levelled at his own additions? }}

I guess part of him is being a bit disingenuous. After all it must be hard for him to have been so praised and (nearly) universally loved for the LOTR films and then he does the Hobbit and it is (nearly) universally criticised for being unutterable garbage. It must be galling, and maybe he wants to re-write it in his head.

Where's his proof of female orcs? He should have referred to statements about breeding like elves and men or breeding with men (half-orcs).

Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that Sauron was trying to destroy Minas Tirith before Aragorn arrived. I'd also forgotten about Angbor at Pelargir.

Come to think of it, if Gandalf had to chase the balrog up the endless stair, why didn't G just bugger off somewhere along the way and go to rejoin the fellowship? Would have been much easier and would have supported his mission much better. Gandalf didn't know he could beat the balrog or that he would be sent back. It's unlikely the balrog would leave Moria, so haven gotten him on the run and passing back through Moria it seems like the better calculation.

{{ Maybe theres rules to Angelic fisticuffs, and if two get in a rammy got to see it through till there's only one winner Though my personal opinion is based on the oft overlookied fact Gandalf is a classic crabbit old bastard, I think after being dragged off the bridge, burned, clawed at and then soaked after a long fall in pitch darkness he was just determined to get the bugger out of pure crabbit }}

His pronunciation drives me crazy. "Meethland" "Bah-Rahd-dur" "Mee-nahs Tee-rahth" And what's up with that music?

But a nice summary nontheless.

halfwise wrote:His pronunciation drives me crazy.  "Meethland" "Bah-Rahd-dur" "Mee-nahs Tee-rahth"

Sindarin short i comes with a bit of "controversy" . . . but long story short (pun intended), in any case and for myself, I'll have no "Meethlond"  [and no Meethland!],  and no i as in machine in Minas Tirith eeether.

Though I did just read in the appendices that 'i' was as in 'machine'. Put me out of sorts.

halfwise wrote:Though I did just read in the appendices that 'i' was as in 'machine'. Put me out of sorts.

But what if Tolkien spoke unclarifyingly in Appendix E? In a later (later than Appendix E) author-published account, The Road Goes Ever On, JRRT noted the following when looking at Ah Elbereth Gilthoniel:

"The intended pronunciation is given in Appendix E to volume III but not perhaps with great clarity, so I offer a few notes ( . . . ) The short vowels may be rendered as in E. sick, bed, hot . . ."

Also, referring back to Appendix E, immediately following Tolkien's "irrespective of quantity" he adds: "In Sindarin long e, a, o had the same quality as the short vowels, being derived . . ." So I asked me, why does Tolkien note these vowels as having the same quality as the short vowels, but not long i?


My opinion/answer is because, according to RGEO, short i has both a different quality and duration.


And there's more to be said about Sindarin short i in general, but as far as Mithlond, Minas Tirith and Mithril are concerned, and even Tolkien's own pronunciation of linnathon and galadhremmin (to my ear at least), I'm using i as in sick, rather than machine.