I just found another Peter Jackson's blunder

[Ent]

Someday maybe

The ever-present "someday maybe" indeed. The hope of us all, in so many arenas and ways they're impossible to count.

 

[Elthir]

well for me this fall in the second point, carelessness. In Peter Jackson's defense this fact wasn't stated in LOTR but in the much more obscure War of the Jewels, that's why I consider it minor.

If memory serves, the relevant description here, published in The War of the Jewels, was not taken up by JRRT himself -- into a later account, that is. Even if so, does that mean JRRT necessarily abandoned all the details therein? Not in my opinion. . .

. . . as, for example, Tolkien had, to my mind, already described essentially the same thing in Appendix A, The Return of the King -- at least regarding female Dwarves being bearded.

I think (my opinion) Tolkien dropped The Silmarillion description partly because of internal authorship considerations -- in other words, in later times it was to be Gimli who revealed these details about the Dwarves, due in part to the relationships he'd made as one of the Nine Walkers.

And from a story-external perspective, one description was already there, in print.

And that said, in any case, Jackson had the rights to Appendix A of course.

🐾

 

[Ricardo]

I respect your decision to hold your position, on many levels and in many areas, @Ricardo.
We fully agree Tolkien's work has not yet "been done justice" in any way - either by any movies yet made, or frankly, by any books yet written.
This is not in the least where our disagreement lies.
We simply disagree on certain semantics. And my view is to how other members of the Forum 'see and react' to foreceful statements like "Another of PJ's blunders."
This is a bit condemnatory, (and in my view amiss unless it relates to his fidelity to his own script), and has brought many to let me know they simply will not speak of things here on the forum because they are met with such criticism by (what many call) the purists on Tolkien's works.

So I act to try to 'level the field' a bit, so people see "it's OK to disagree, and share" as well as to help some others consider HOW they say WHAT they say to see if there is a more "inviting" way to move into 'discussion' rather than 'argument' or even 'contention.'

(This at times brings a certain level of 'argument' - even 'contention' - all of its own. But I still believe serves a certain purpose.)

Trust me, sir @Ricardo, I drive many people nuts. But I would rather drive some nuts, than see people continue to leave, or remain quiet, at risk of riling the more hard-core among us.

You yourself are far from 'demanding' or 'insisting' people see things your way. And it also seems you are receptive to others' input.
That said, we can leave it here as the 'profit' of the exchange has pretty well run its course.

I won't respond to either of your posts above, given the situation as it is...feeling this is the best course of action to take at this time.

(Though if you want it, I will still be happy to send you some of my explorations in Tolkien's inclusions and intentions in his text still overlooked and not seen by most, including any writers in the arena I have so far encountered.)

sounds fair, I think the topics have been discussed enough.

I only want to add that I would never criticize or mock other people's opinions, I could try to make them change their mind but in a respectful way. I also want to help people to understand Tolkien's works better if so they wish.

I am pretty sure Peter Jackson is not in this forum, so he is a fair target, though I will try to choose my words better.

I will be glad you read your explorations. No matter how much you read, there is always something new to learn about the Legendarium.

If memory serves, the relevant description here, published in The War of the Jewels, was not taken up by JRRT himself -- into a later account, that is. Even if so, does that mean JRRT necessarily abandoned all the details therein? Not in my opinion. . .

. . . as, for example, Tolkien had, to my mind, already described essentially the same thing in Appendix A, The Return of the King -- at least regarding female Dwarves being bearded.

I think (my opinion) Tolkien dropped The Silmarillion description partly because of internal authorship considerations -- in other words, in later times it was to be Gimli who revealed these details about the Dwarves, due in part to the relationships he'd made as one of the Nine Walkers.

And from a story-external perspective, one description was already there, in print.

And that said, in any case, Jackson had the rights to Appendix A of course.

🐾

thanks for that, it has been a while since I last read LOTR so I completely forgot about that.

 

[Elthir]

For anyone who might want to see the text, I copy and paste some other folk quoting Tolkien:

_____

"The exact quote [Appendix A] is "They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."

So while he does not specifically say "Dwarf women had beards" obviously they did since, the males did, and they would be so alike in appearance that other people could not tell them apart of the women did not also have beards." Voronwe the Faithful (Doug Kane)
_____

I agree.

And the following is from "Squire" who quotes both JRRT and CJRT:

_____

For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls." - HoME XI, p. 205, bold by squire, here and below.

This long section on the origins and culture of the Dwarves was omitted from the published Silmarillion by Christopher Tolkien - I don't know why (though I have no doubt he explains himself somewhere in the labyrinth that is History of Middle-earth!).

[Me, Elthir -- again, there was a later Silmarillion text that omitted this detail (and others)]

[Squire continues] J.R.R. Tolkien, in composing the appendices of LotR in roughly the same period, wrote out several versions of the text called "Durin's Folk" (LotR Appendix A.III) that pick up on some of the information he had developed for the up to date Silmarillion. A draft of the appendix is presented in HoME XII, which is longer than the text finally published, with more details on Dwarven society and culture. But Christopher Tolkien is often reluctant to reprint drafts that don't differ significantly from the published edition, and so he tells us, as he deftly omits the section of the draft of A.III that discusses Dwarf women:

This [i.e., this draft text on how Dwarves age] is followed by the information attributed to Gimli concerning the Dwarf-women, which was preserved in Appendix A (RK p. 360). There is no difference in substance to the present text, except for the statements that they are never forced to wed against their will (which 'would of course be impossible'), and that they have beards. This latter is also said in the 1951 revision of the Quenta Silmarillion (XI.205, para. 5) [reprinted above - squire]. - HoME XII, 285

_____

So that's Christopher Tolkien < and this last sentence, and the one you might be reading right now, was written by Elthir.

 

[Ent]

I only want to add that I would never criticize or mock other people's opinions, I could try to make them change their mind but in a respectful way. I also want to help people to understand Tolkien's works better if so they wish.

I am pretty sure Peter Jackson is not in this forum, so he is a fair target, though I will try to choose my words better.

This is all the Admins ask of us... respect for one another.
There were some on the forum previously who were quite demeaning toward not only other members, but also of people "not on the forum."
The feeling generally is, even if the person is not a member of the forum, it is not 'appropriate' to bash or abuse or demean or otherwise insult the person.
Negativity both attracts, and begets, negativity, expanding into something problematic. (It is not always 'opposites' that create a pull.)
A lot of hard work went into developing respect - not just for members, but for those feeding into the world of Tolkien everywhere. PJ (and other movie makers and book writers) included.

Once, during a later part of that period, I was an Admin. Now, I'm just annoying, I fear.

 

[Ent]

cannot

We come again to the term referring to 'abiliies' rather than 'permissions'.
And, it is repeated in your dissertation above, too.
Very strong language coming from Tolkien - (i refer again to the huge difference between his 'cannot' to the Balrog on the bridge, and the 'shall not' substituted elsewhere.)

Again I would postulate Tolkien, given his linguistic skills, rarely made mistakes.

Thank you.

 

[Ricardo]

By the way, @Ricardo - rather than digging out on the forum here where else I've spoken to the whole unfolding scenes of Moria issue, I'll find my essay on it later on my home computer, and send it to you soon, attached to a PM. It's got a bit more development on it, as I've expanded it a little toward inclusion in the book. (far from done... but has the rudiments of what the sequence contains.)


Multiple. I review Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, Websters (usually with a slightly skeptical eye, though at times Websters hits things more succinctly and directly than others), Dictionary.com, and sometimes even ask AI for a general rendering from its review of all its various sources to compare its summary with my own..

The result is a 'compendium' of these primary sources, as they 'match' across the review.
Sometimes I also refer to "Etymology Online" and a couple other Etymology sources I have electronically, if I am seeking the meaning as it was at some point in history - or a word's sources and understandings/definitions in other languages.

Words are critically important to me.

Indeed, our own great and illustrious @Squint-eyed Southerner and I went 'head to head' as some like to say, on a particular word at one point in time.
I maintained (and to a degree, still do), Tolkien used it incorrectly.
Squint maintained such was not so.
In working at the word for quite some time, I came to see Tolkien was at the leading edge of - perhaps even one of the earliest movers of - the 'change' of the word and its meaning as history unfolded. (Words and their meaning are always on the move.)

So it may well be Tolkien did not use it "incorrectly" at all - but "intentionally" - molding it as it was in the process of doing in any event. A promulgator of the change, one might say.

Well, we all know the Tolkien was an accomplished philologist and his passion were languages, especially ancient languages and some scandinavian languages, I think quenya was based on Finish if I am not mistaken.

Despite his expertise, I think it's possible that sometimes he used words incorrectly. It would be a case of too much information.

I know Tolkien recognized a wrong word, dwarves instead of dwarfs. He admitted it was wrong but whether it was intentional or not, I don't know.

This is all the Admins ask of us... respect for one another.
There were some on the forum previously who were quite demeaning toward not only other members, but also of people "not on the forum."
The feeling generally is, even if the person is not a member of the forum, it is not 'appropriate' to bash or abuse or demean or otherwise insult the person.
Negativity both attracts, and begets, negativity, expanding into something problematic. (It is not always 'opposites' that create a pull.)
A lot of hard work went into developing respect - not just for members, but for those feeding into the world of Tolkien everywhere. PJ (and other movie makers and book writers) included.

Once, during a later part of that period, I was an Admin. Now, I'm just annoying, I fear.

I agree but notice that I never attacked the person of Peter Jackson, who I don't know, he can be a wonderful person or the opposite. I don't even know if the problems with the script are Jackson's fault or someone else (the movie studio pressing for more popular choices).

Also @Ent I would love to read those essays.

 

[Ent]

notice that I never attacked the person of Peter Jackson,

Trust me, this was noticed..!

Also @Ent I would love to read those essays.

acknowledged.

 

[Vardarianna]

@Elthir and @Eljorahir above - blowing the fun right out of my intended future research project..!!
Such is the power of The Tolkien Forum. 🤣

Or did they blunder the fun out of it?

Maybe Gimli should have taken the blunderbuss.

Did PJ take a ride on the 'Blunder Bus'? I think his biggest blunder was dumping the whole northern kingdom and destroying the whole reason Aragorn via his bloodline was special.

 

[Ent]

Or did they blunder the fun out of it?

Nope. No 'blunder'. (there's that "blunder" word again. Ent the Pickey leaps to the keyboard.)


Neither @Elthir nor @Eljorahir moved unsteadily or confusedly, nor did they 'make a mistake' whether through stupidity - (hardly possible for either) - ignorance - (perhaps possible in certain areas where they lack knowledge, bnt certainly not in this case) - or carelessness - (not a common trait of either.)

They were, in fact, quite intentional, direct, and on-track. Both have been known to cut my 'research time' down significantly - and while I decry it (jokingly) from time to time since I love research, nonetheless, I am indebted to both. They have provided me inestimable benefits through my time here.
To review:

*Blunder Definitions:
1: to move unsteadily or confusedly
2: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

I see you feel PJ "made a mistake" - i.e. was unsteady or confused, or stupid, ignorant or careless, in leaving out the Northern Kingdom issues and their backdrop to Aragorn's importance.

I'll need to watch the films again, as I did not feel a lack of grasp of why Aaragorn was important, myself. Problem is, I know the books - so I have to approach the movies again with the perspective of an unread observer, and see how unclear PJ left it - or if the trail of crumbs provided feels sufficient to me.

Clearly for some, it isn't.

Trust me, I would have loved to see an entire additional segment made too, to incorporate some of what could have been incorporated.
And, I do think there were ways such a thing as Aragorn's lineage could have been included very simply - say between a reminiscing Elrond and Gandalf along the way, or something similar - without needing a whole new segment to the films. Or even between Gandalf and Pippin, or wherever/however.

But was it a 'blunder' or a 'choice' ?

If PJ left it unclear, this may be one case where Ent too feels it closes on the term 'blunder,' as it's really key to the whole, and it really could have been dealt with quite simply in several ways. It MAY fit appropriately into the category of "mistake" - and if so, a determination of whether by stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness is at hand.

Another research project is on the list. Thank you!!

 

[Ent]

@Ricardo, I'm sending you one of the early drafts putting together a few more of the pieces of the Moria scene - this early portion particularly focused on a little more of the Gandalf-Balrog connectivity and purpose in Tolkien's work.

It's all quite expressive, and essential to understanding, ultimately, the Gandalf-Saruman encounter at Orthanc in the end.

The piece sent you in PM is still quite incomplete, but will give you a deeper flavor of Tolkien's incorporation of 'moral and religious events - but not overtly' as he incorporated them into his works.

When I find my next iteration of the Moria issues, I'll send it along as well.

 

[Eljorahir]

Aragorn's bloodline, I think, is covered well enough in this scene, but maybe not as well as I'd like at the Council meeting.

 

[Ent]

Aragorn's bloodline, I think, is covered well enough in this scene, but maybe not as well as I'd like at the Council meeting.

Yes, this was the snippet hanging at the edges of my failing memory, thank you - needing to be reviewed. (See how you blow up my research projects? Always with the facts you are..!) But there are other tangential references too, I think. (Could well be mistaken.)

That said, "is it enough?" For some, it's true it doesn't cover the 'whole Northern Kingdom" issue, and all the connections thereto. Nor, in fact, does it clarify Elrond's involvements, and subsequent possession of the shards. (Of which there are too many. Textually, it was simply broken in two pieces, not multiple.)

In my current thinking, PJ made a very intentional, reductive "choice" about how to situate Aragorn and his claim to the throne - rather than there being any 'mistake.' To cover the whole of the issues of the Northern Kingdom, the Witch King, who he was and his ongoing activities, the Rangers and their countless years of protecting the Shire, etc. and so forth - would again have taken a good deal of time.

I truly wish the whole had been done as 6 films, just as Tolkien's work was 6 books. (Not "3".) But the cost, and I'm sure concern for loss of audience, was prohibitive.

But I will continue to review the matter, until I settle my perspective once again regarding whether PJ 'blundered' or 'chose.' The two are very different.
I only wish I had access to ask him directly.

 

[Ent]

By the way, for those who may not yet know, I always put all these kinds of things through my entire model of "how to think" before I re-settle, revise, or replace, my perspectives.
It's the subject of my book To Grow or Not To Grow: the Slavery of Opinion, the Freedom of Perspective, and Why It All Matters.

For anyone interested in the full cycle from any occurrence, to a perspective (rather than an opinion) here is an attachment of that cycle.
Every occurrence of any kind at any time MAY become a "new input event" for us. But we must intentionally make it so.

Any questions, feel free to PM me. The opposite of The Cycle of Growth presented in this attachment, is The Cycle of Stagnation.

There are no alternatives in life. We either grow, or we don't.

(And this is why I love research so much.)

p.s. - anyone wishing to discuss this, explore the definition of the terms used, or follow how it differs from our trained thinking pattern (given we are intentionally left with a near total lack of teaching about how to think rightly) let me know. Happy to discuss. (Also provides food for the book - with appropriate citations for any contributions included in it, of course.)

 

[Ricardo]

Yes, this was the snippet hanging at the edges of my failing memory, thank you - needing to be reviewed. (See how you blow up my research projects? Always with the facts you are..!) But there are other tangential references too, I think. (Could well be mistaken.)

That said, "is it enough?" For some, it's true it doesn't cover the 'whole Northern Kingdom" issue, and all the connections thereto. Nor, in fact, does it clarify Elrond's involvements, and subsequent possession of the shards. (Of which there are too many. Textually, it was simply broken in two pieces, not multiple.)

In my current thinking, PJ made a very intentional, reductive "choice" about how to situate Aragorn and his claim to the throne - rather than there being any 'mistake.' To cover the whole of the issues of the Northern Kingdom, the Witch King, who he was and his ongoing activities, the Rangers and their countless years of protecting the Shire, etc. and so forth - would again have taken a good deal of time.

I truly wish the whole had been done as 6 films, just as Tolkien's work was 6 books. (Not "3".) But the cost, and I'm sure concern for loss of audience, was prohibitive.

But I will continue to review the matter, until I settle my perspective once again regarding whether PJ 'blundered' or 'chose.' The two are very different.
I only wish I had access to ask him directly.

I agree that covering Aragorn's bloodline would be too cumbersome, and it would still be incomplete without referring to the Silmarillion (to which the filmmakers did not have rights). I don't believe most of the audience would understand that and I think we have to live that LOTR films cannot explain everything.

There are some things that I believe could have been explained in a creative way. For example, Legolas could have talked to the hobbits about elves, just major traits like they are immortal, their souls go to Valinor if they physically die, etc.

the introduction (the one narrated by Galadriel) could include some background information on Sauron.

Little things like that would have given viewers a better understanding without having to make like 10 films to explain things.

And as with the dates the books themselves were published, it would have been ideal to have a Silmarillon movie first, although I know it's a pipe dream.

 

[Eljorahir]

just major traits like they are immortal,

I think this scene comes close to informing the viewer of elvish immortality.

 

[Ashley]

Blunder Bus

 

[Ricardo]

Nope. No 'blunder'. (there's that "blunder" word again. Ent the Pickey leaps to the keyboard.)


Neither @Elthir nor @Eljorahir moved unsteadily or confusedly, nor did they 'make a mistake' whether through stupidity - (hardly possible for either) - ignorance - (perhaps possible in certain areas where they lack knowledge, bnt certainly not in this case) - or carelessness - (not a common trait of either.)

They were, in fact, quite intentional, direct, and on-track. Both have been known to cut my 'research time' down significantly - and while I decry it (jokingly) from time to time since I love research, nonetheless, I am indebted to both. They have provided me inestimable benefits through my time here.
To review:

*Blunder Definitions:
1: to move unsteadily or confusedly
2: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

I see you feel PJ "made a mistake" - i.e. was unsteady or confused, or stupid, ignorant or careless, in leaving out the Northern Kingdom issues and their backdrop to Aragorn's importance.

I'll need to watch the films again, as I did not feel a lack of grasp of why Aaragorn was important, myself. Problem is, I know the books - so I have to approach the movies again with the perspective of an unread observer, and see how unclear PJ left it - or if the trail of crumbs provided feels sufficient to me.

Clearly for some, it isn't.

Trust me, I would have loved to see an entire additional segment made too, to incorporate some of what could have been incorporated.
And, I do think there were ways such a thing as Aragorn's lineage could have been included very simply - say between a reminiscing Elrond and Gandalf along the way, or something similar - without needing a whole new segment to the films. Or even between Gandalf and Pippin, or wherever/however.

But was it a 'blunder' or a 'choice' ?

If PJ left it unclear, this may be one case where Ent too feels it closes on the term 'blunder,' as it's really key to the whole, and it really could have been dealt with quite simply in several ways. It MAY fit appropriately into the category of "mistake" - and if so, a determination of whether by stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness is at hand.

Another research project is on the list. Thank you!!

There is one scene where Arwen tells Aragorn that he is Isildur's heir. But I am not too sure it is clear who Isildur or Elendil are.

 

[Ricardo]

Vanya, Noldor, Teleri, the 3 houses of the Edain, Maia, Numenor, Arnor, Gondor, how do you explain that without wasting too much time?

 

[Elthir]

My Adaptation (so far)

Scene 1:
Galadriel orders an old man in a pointed hat to go get a ring. . . for her.

Scene 2:
Frodo and company show up in Lorien (no Gandalf), but Galadriel rejects that ring.

Scene 3:
Celeborn says Galadriel's ring was nicer anyway.

Scene 4:
One day Galadriel looks in her mirror and sees that rejected ring being destroyed.

Scene 5:
Galadriel orders Sam to plant a golden tree in the Shire and to put a black cat in that tree.

Scene 6:
The Hobbits fight Saruman and thugs, in order to plant that golden tree in the Shire.

Scene 7:
Galadriel says "Well I'm back" when she gets back Over Sea.

Ha!

In only 7 scenes I have accomplished what Peter Jackson refused to do!