logo Sign In

Tolkien

Author
Time

So... JRR Tolkien. Pretty good writer from all reports.

He made a classic work "The Hobbit," and then went and wrote some sequals, perhaps you've heard of them, "The Lord of the Rings."

But, when he made LOTR, "The Hobbit" no longer fit his vision. He went back and made, for lack of a better word, a "Special Edition" of it, where he changed a major scene involving his hero, a ring, and a little dude named Gollum.

Because of these changes, the original work that made him famous and allowed him to write LOTR was forever altered, and The Original Uncut Hobbit (The OUH) is available only to a small market of rabid collectors.

And yet I've never heard anyone complain about Tokien's actions (and I'm not complainig here). But what is the fundamental difference between what the Professor did, and what that one dude with the beard and the flannels did to his work?

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

But what is the fundamental difference between what the Professor did, and what that one dude with the beard and the flannels did to his work?

Spirituality ? (Anything to do with the shape).

ESB AUDIOPHILE EDITION

 

The EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Score: "All-Sourced" Restoration & Sonic Achievement.

Author
Time

Did you know that in the 1960's J. R. R. Tolkien started rewriting the entire novel of "The Hobbit" in the same style of The Lord of the Rings? What survives of this attempt is reprinted in the "The History of The Hobbit" box set. So Tolkien played with the idea of not just re-doing one scene, but in fact revising the story telling style of the entire work.

“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison

Author
Time

FanFiltration said:

Did you know that in the 1960's J. R. R. Tolkien started rewriting the entire novel of "The Hobbit" in the same style of The Lord of the Rings? What survives of this attempt is reprinted in the "The History of The Hobbit" box set. So Tolkien played with the idea of not just re-doing one scene, but in fact revising the story telling style of the entire work.

 I did not know this... and now must find this book!

Author
Time

We actually did discuss this on these boards many years back, but I'd have no idea how to begin about searching for that thread. Especially since we have such a long history of going off on tangents, the name of the thread probably has nothing to do with that discussion at all.

I could make all sorts of arguments about how film and books are of a very different nature, and that adding modern special effects to a 20 year old movie is more like sewing a bright shinny brand new piece of fabric onto a old worn pair of pants as a patch, where it will stand out like a sore thumb, while adding and revising a few lines in a book is more like patching something with the same sort of cloth it was originally made from. 

But actually, I find the revision of books extremely annoying in the exact same way I find the revision of films annoying. My annoyance on this matter doesn't stop with just the Star Wars films, I don't pick on them just to be picking on them. I actually prefer to experience all works in a way as close as possible to the original audience, books being no exception. So much so that I literally cringe every time I pick up my American printing of books like Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series and find words like "torch" replaced with "flashlight". (Honestly, Americans are not that dumb. I am sure they are perfectly capable of figuring out that Arther Dent is not actually using a burning stick in order to see while rummaging through the filing cabinet in the disused lavatory with the "Beware of the Leopard" sign on the door. Part of the charm of something like Douglas Adams books are how British they are, and by Americanizing them, we lose a bit of that.)

I can understand why Tolkien seriously revised that part of The Hobbit, and I don't really fault him for it. I feel it was done very seamlessly, and without really changing anything in the books overall storyline. But I still like to be able to read it the way it was first presented to the world. Which is why my lovely little hardcover copy of The Hobbit has a printed piece of paper containing the original chapter printed in very small font folded up and stuck behind the dust jacket.

C. S. Lewis also changed bits to his Narnia books over the years, most severe of which was the part in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader where they rescue a castaway. Honestly, I much prefer the original version of that sequence, and regret that that version is doomed to exile in only the old tattered printings of that book. But again, I can forgive this, because the whole thing, exactly as it was originally written, is readily available to the world in the same sort of quality as the replacement. Anyone who wants to read the unaltered chapter of The Hobbit or the original bit from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader only has to do a quick web search in order to do so. If I am not mistaken, the recently published History of The Hobbit, contains the unaltered parts as well. 

I have said many times on these forums before, I do not begrudge Lucas just for simply changing those parts, I begrudge him for changing those parts, then going way out of his way to ensure they are never seen again... or more recently, to ensure they are never seen again in enjoyable quality.

Had C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, or other authors who have revised their books after the first publication displayed the same attitude as George Lucas has on the situation, then I think I'd be pretty quick to feel the same way about them as I do about Lucas. 

I think another reason why this isn't brought up as much, is because of The Hobbit's age, none of us here experienced reading it one way as a child, then forced to read only the altered version thereafter. 

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Geez, I don't think it was done seamlessly at all, and it's something that's always annoyed me.  He visibly retconned the scene in Lord of the Rings by saying that The Hobbit was written by Bilbo, and that the original version was a lie induced by the influence of the ring.  That was seamless.  But when he went back and changed the scene to the "real" version, that totally fucked everything up and was completely stupid and invalidated his own explanation.  What was he thinking?!

EDIT:  Oh, but in general, I take changing books just as seriously as I take changing movies.  If I ever get my novel published, I will have it contractually say that the text can never be altered after the first printing, even if something as small a typo or two manages to sneak past the editor or some future book contradicts a plot point.  Just leave it alone.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

That's it! I'm founding OriginalHobbit.com.

Then I'll fanedit it, and release The Hobitt: Reinvigorated.

I'll put in the original scene with Gollum, then I think I'll change the chapter titles to a snazzier font, and lastly add some slick CG to Thorin's map.

Author
Time

I still haven't set up OriginalCaptainEO.com, so let me know if we can get a package deal.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

That's it! I'm founding OriginalHobbit.com.

Sweet!  Sign me up.  I'm going to create a sock account.  I think I'll call it "Aerial 'Copter Shot"

Author
Time

Stephen King also went back and altered 'The Gunslinger' to fit with the later Dark Tower books.  The original can be found on ebay etc so it's not a massive deal, and the Dark Tower series is so awesome that I'm glad the first book now fits, but still... it's very much George Lucas territory - he wrote the first book, which spawned a sequel and ultimately a 7 part epic, so went back and 'fixed' the earlier work to fit later ideas.

P.S If you haven't read the Dark Tower, read it now.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

Geez, I don't think it was done seamlessly at all, and it's something that's always annoyed me.  He visibly retconned the scene in Lord of the Rings by saying that The Hobbit was written by Bilbo, and that the original version was a lie induced by the influence of the ring.  That was seamless.  But when he went back and changed the scene to the "real" version, that totally fucked everything up and was completely stupid and invalidated his own explanation.  What was he thinking?!

Thank you so much!  I thought I was the only one who realized that or had a problem with it.  The discrepancy still bugs me. 

I have never believed that Bilbo wrote The Hobbit, in spite of what The Lord of the Rings says.  It just doesn't feel right.

I would like to have a copy of the original Hobbit, but would ultimately prefer to have the revised version of The Hobbit and edit the Lord of the Rings to fit it.  Controversial, I know!  :-) 

Author
Time

C3PX said:

But again, I can forgive this, because the whole thing, exactly as it was originally written, is readily available to the world in the same sort of quality as the replacement. Anyone who wants to read the unaltered chapter of The Hobbit or the original bit from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader only has to do a quick web search in order to do so.

 

I think this is the key.  Because the medium is the written word, as long as the former text is available to read, it is therefore available in the same quality as the replacement.  All that is required is legibility, and the mind will take care of the rest.

Plus, since the pace of a book is dictated by the reader, one can:
1. Read chapters 1-4 as is.
2. Next, remove a piece of paper from behind the dustjacket, unfold it, and read their preferred chapter 5 (magnifying glass optional).
3. Finally, return the folded paper to its dustjacket nest and resume reading the book's chapters 6-19.

...and thereby experience the piece of literature as it was originally composed.

Pink Floyd -- First in Space

Author
Time

What C3PX and auximenies have written about Chapter Five is entirely reasonable.  The original fifth chapter of The Hobbit will never be as much of an issue as the original Star Wars trilogy. 

Nonetheless, I believe a significant number of people would like a copy of the original version of The Hobbit, if only as a collector's item.  Although the quality of the print might not be an issue, for some people having the original as it was originally composed involves having it as an integrated work - a book being arguably more than a collection of text in one binding. 

Author
Time

auximenies said:

C3PX said:

But again, I can forgive this, because the whole thing, exactly as it was originally written, is readily available to the world in the same sort of quality as the replacement.

 

I think this is the key.  Because the medium is the written word, as long as the former text is available to read, it is therefore available in the same quality as the replacement. 

I'm with C3PX & Aux on this one.  Altered words & altered images are entirely different animals.  Your mind builds the scenery when you read.  All you need are the words, in any form, and you have the story.  With altered films, someone else is making visual decisions for you.  Which - for me anyway - is a problem if it tries to compete with an image that's been completed for 30 years.  I have zero interest in trying to reconcile the two.

That, by the way, is precisely why I never watched the SEs.  I didn't want any of the images in my head trying to contradict the originals - images or story.

As far as going back and changing past works to try and force them to fit later works; That's something I just can't make sense of.  To me, it's a slap in the face to an artist's original fans, as well as a lie.  The past can't be changed - no matter how hard you try to make it for the original fans to remember - no matter how many times you lie about what you originally said & did.  Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Lucas.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)

TheBoost said:

So... JRR Tolkien. Pretty good writer from all reports.

He made a classic work "The Hobbit," and then went and wrote some sequals, perhaps you've heard of them, "The Lord of the Rings."

But, when he made LOTR, "The Hobbit" no longer fit his vision. He went back and made, for lack of a better word, a "Special Edition" of it, where he changed a major scene involving his hero, a ring, and a little dude named Gollum.

Because of these changes, the original work that made him famous and allowed him to write LOTR was forever altered, and The Original Uncut Hobbit (The OUH) is available only to a small market of rabid collectors.

And yet I've never heard anyone complain about Tokien's actions (and I'm not complainig here). But what is the fundamental difference between what the Professor did, and what that one dude with the beard and the flannels did to his work?

Films are different from books. They work differently and thus it's ok to apply different standards to them. I allow authors of on-paper fiction a lot more leeway with their work than I allow tv/film creators, who after all are only one among the many people involved in making "their" works. Middle Earth was all JRRT (except his son's posthumous edits in the Simarillion). The OOT is way more than just Mr Lucas.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Anchorhead said:

As far as going back and changing past works to try and force them to fit later works; That's something I just can't make sense of.  To me, it's a slap in the face to an artist's original fans, as well as a lie.  The past can't be changed - no matter how hard you try to make it for the original fans to remember - no matter how many times you lie about what you originally said & did.  Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Lucas.

While Tolkien is guilty of changing the Hobbit to fit LOTR, here's another thing in his favor:  He didn't pretend that the alteration was part of his "original vision".  And, while there is some validity to the notion that by altering the Hobbit he muddles the plot point in LOTR, realize that he does include a preface in the Hobbit stating that the story of the riddles used to be told differently, but the truth was discovered and so now it has been updated.  It's rather clever how he explains the discrepancy in LOTR, and the change in the Hobbit preface.

And to another point, it is quite understandable why certain fans would want to get ahold of an original printing to have the entire original story bound and in a complete volume, despite the feasibility of the "work around" I described above.

 

Vaderisnothayden said:

Middle Earth was all JRRT (except his son's posthumous edits in the Simarillion). The OOT is way more than just Mr Lucas.

Very good point.  And one which we are all aware of but I don't think it was yet brought up in the context of this discussion.  Lucas withholding the original is an insult to, as one example, the ILM crew whose work was replaced by CGI.

Pink Floyd -- First in Space

Author
Time

auximenies said: 

Vaderisnothayden said:

Middle Earth was all JRRT (except his son's posthumous edits in the Simarillion). The OOT is way more than just Mr Lucas.

Very good point.  And one which we are all aware of but I don't think it was yet brought up in the context of this discussion.  Lucas withholding the original is an insult to, as one example, the ILM crew whose work was replaced by CGI.

 YEP.

All in all, the discussion leads my thoughts to THE question... And I already have my own answer. I t would almost deserve a topic:

What is the difference between a "change" and an "alteration" ?

There was an exposition in France some years ago about the technics of the most famous French writers - as Victor Hugo - at the "Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris" (Paris Nationnal Library).  The expo was called "writers drafts" and I can tell that there are so much ways to think and construct a piece of work that it turns some point I rode here out of the matter.

When the motivations for changes are fully commercials, those are certainly alterations. Lucas wanted to say: hey! Remember Star Wars ? Whatch this ! And imagine my next three film with such a tecnology !

What I think it is: Advertising.

-

Now about LoTR, they just wanted your eyes full of FX. Please everyone take a minute and wonder why they didn't make the end of the story (the return in the country) with the concrete buildings ect... Looks too much as where you live ?

What I think: It would have been the more powerful contrast for a "fantasy" film and more, the audience would have certainly identificated how we - humans - are turning miserable with our sense of restrictions etc... It is to me the heart of the book. Such a message is 1000 times far powerful and somehow awakening than any fashionable so called "ecological" attitude.

ESB AUDIOPHILE EDITION

 

The EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Score: "All-Sourced" Restoration & Sonic Achievement.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ABC said:

What is the difference between a "change" and an "alteration" ?

There is none in common parlance.  To change is to alter.  You can describe different kinds of change if you want to do so, but to use one of a pair of synonyms to refer to one kind of change, and the other to refer to another kind of change, would be a purely arbitrary distinction.

 And, while there is some validity to the notion that by altering the Hobbit he muddles the plot point in LOTR, realize that he does include a preface in the Hobbit stating that the story of the riddles used to be told differently, but the truth was discovered and so now it has been updated.  It's rather clever how he explains the discrepancy in LOTR, and the change in the Hobbit preface.

Where does it say that in the preface?  I have two copies of the book and in the preface of neither does this statement about the riddle-game appear.  I have never seen this.  Perhaps we have different versions?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ABC said:

Please everyone take a minute and wonder why they didn't make the end of the story (the return in the country) with the concrete buildings ect... Looks too much as where you live ?

In a  interview I read shortly after the film was released, Jackson said he's never liked that chapter of the book, so he just left it out of the film.

It is to me the heart of the book. Such a message is 1000 times far powerful and somehow awakening...

It's certainly a very important part of the story. Funny that Jackson says he doesn't like that part of the story.  I can't imagine anyone liking it. It's harsh, but it's important in showing the loss of innocence of the heroes - both in what happens to their home, as well as how they deal with it now that they've grown and matured through the story.

Jackson sort of fairy-taled the ending - the boat sailed off and everyone lived happily ever after. That's not how the story ends.  Which gets us into a different area of alteration\change discussion - people altering other people's work.  I'm not talking about superficial changes for time constraints or combining/removing minor characters.  I'm talking about bigger story-changing alterations. Which to me, is what the absence of The Scouring is.

I guess I'm of the mind that if you're going to tell someone else's story - then tell the story. Why alter it to the point of making it a completely different story? Why not just make a similar but different take on the story, the way Lucas did with Star Wars?

Every time I discuss these types of things, I'm immediately reminded of an episode of Emeril Lagasse's cooking show from years ago.  He was making a dessert and discussing the ingredients as he went along.  When he got to the sweetening portion, he said "use a cup of sugar...if you don't have sugar, use molasses...if you don't have molasses, use Karo syrup...if you don't have Karo syrup - then make a different dessert". His point being - make it correctly or don't make it at all.

 

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)

Chewtobacca said:

ABC said:

What is the difference between a "change" and an "alteration" ?

There is none in common parlance.  To change is to alter.  You can describe different kinds of change if you want to do so, but to use one of a pair of synonyms to refer to one kind of change, and the other to refer to another kind of change, would be a purely arbitrary distinction.

 Oh. Sorry. In French, "change" means a change or a re-evaluation, when an "alteration" means a degradation.

When you're an author who allows himself to some changes in your own work, they can be a degradation or an improvement. The second one can't be called an alteration in French.

Anchorhead said:

... Which gets us into a different area of alteration\change discussion - people altering other people's work...

 

 Of course.

... And I like the dessert exemple ;)

ESB AUDIOPHILE EDITION

 

The EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Score: "All-Sourced" Restoration & Sonic Achievement.

Author
Time

ABC said:

 Oh. Sorry. In French, "change" means a change or a re-evaluation, when an "alteration" means a degradation.

When you're an author who allows himself to some changes in your own work, they can be a degradation or an improvement. The second one can't be called an alteration in French.

That's fascinating!  Thank you for letting me know.  I didn't know the words carried those meanings in French.  I think it shows an interesting difference in perspective.  :-)

Author
Time

ABC said:

Now about LoTR, they just wanted your eyes full of FX. Please everyone take a minute and wonder why they didn't make the end of the story (the return in the country) with the concrete buildings ect... Looks too much as where you live ?

What I think: It would have been the more powerful contrast for a "fantasy" film and more, the audience would have certainly identificated how we - humans - are turning miserable with our sense of restrictions etc... It is to me the heart of the book. Such a message is 1000 times far powerful and somehow awakening than any fashionable so called "ecological" attitude.

 Are you referring to the Scouring of the Shire? That would have added 20 minutes easily (and more like 40 to do it anything resembling justice) to a movie that already went on 20 minutes past the defeat of the main antagonist.

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

 Are you referring to the Scouring of the Shire? That would have added 20 minutes easily (and more like 40 to do it anything resembling justice) to a movie that already went on 20 minutes past the defeat of the main antagonist.

 Yes, that's what I'm referring too.

... With a little reflection (almost) all is possible.

May I push the question further: What makes a piece of Art ? Suggestion, or demonstration ? Pick one...

-

I can't keep myself of thinking of the Balrog sequence:

The film shows a brillant FX demonstration, quite impressive and even beautiful.

Now just take sequence from the book: all happens in darkness and you can't give a shape to what is in front of the characters (whom emotions give all the power to the scene) , and most of all: as reader you really piss in your pants ! That all the power of suggestion.

Such a cinema is still feasible (though Hollywood doen't want this) and the scene would have cost ten times less than what they made.

ESB AUDIOPHILE EDITION

 

The EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Score: "All-Sourced" Restoration & Sonic Achievement.

Author
Time

So... Rev W Awdry. Wrote the popular children's books collectively titled The Railway Series, which was the basis for the Thomas and Friends TV show.

He made a classic work "Henry the Green Engine" in 1951.

But, in 1972, the story was attacked by the national press for containing the phrase "as black as niggers". To solve the problem, he changed the offending sentence to "as black as soot", which has been used in all subsequent editions of the book.

Err... can't see many people complaining about that one.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time

That's the same book that featured the line, "As gay as Rob" too, right?

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!