So, no sooner does the news come that New Line and Jackson seem to have settled on a director for the forthcoming HOBBIT film (unfortunately not Jackson himself, though we can still hope this will change) than the news comes down that the Tolkien Estate has filed a $150,000,000 dollar lawsuit against New Line. There are many versions of the news story available online; I found the most helpful to be Kristin Thompson's account, which links to the basic announcements and has some thoughtful commentary on their implications.
http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/?p=191
Basically, the Tolkien Trust (representing the Tolkien Estate) and HarperCollins (as Tolkien's publishers) are suing for unpaid royalties (7.5% of the films' gross), as well as unspecified punitive damages (they're charging the studio with having destroyed records, fudged accounts, and general recalcitrance over the last six years -- in short, 'Hollywood Accounting' at its worst). Finally, they're asking for the right to cancel any HOBBIT movie if they can show that the studio violated their agreement. Those wanting to see the actual Complaint filed by the plaintiffs, which is full of interesting details, can find it at
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/ent/tlknnewline21108cmp.html
(my thanks to Wayne Hammond for posting this link on the Mythsoc list).
Given that this lawsuit comes at a point when New Line is said to be reeling on the brink,* if they didn't pay the Tolkiens back in 2001-2004 when they were rolling in money it seems unlikely that they'll be able to do so now. So the likely outcome seems to be that the HOBBIT movie will get put on hold, New Line's option will lapse, the rights will revert to Zaentz, and he'll re-license it to another studio, probably with Jackson and his team still involved. We'll see.
--JDR
*at least in part because they expected THE GOLDEN COMPASS to be another blockbuster. Instead, it's only made back about half of what they spent to make it. Too bad. The Catholic League is claiming its 'boycott' was responsible; given that almost no one knows they were even trying to prevent folks from seeing the film (on the bizarre grounds that the director had taken out all the references critical of Christianity in the original story), I find this, in the words of Lewis Carroll, 'a sentiment subject to doubt'. In fact, I strongly suspect if the director had had the guts to film something closer to what Pullman actually wrote they'd have done better. Now we'll never know.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
And Now, It's Bats
So, last year it was bees who were undergoing catastrophic population collapse. Now comes a story about a massive bat die-off underway in the Northeast, particularly New York and Vermont, and spreading rapidly.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501ap_bat_die_off.html
This is particularly disturbing, given that they've still not figured out why a large percentage of America's honeybees died last year, other than to give the phenomenon a name ("Colony Collapse Discover", or CCD).* And, while many people are inexplicably afraid of bats (mainly because of the rabies myth), we need them, both as pollinators and as devourers of vast quantities of bugs. The fewer bats, the more mosquitoes--which is bad in these days of West Nile Virus and depleted bee populations.
I'm old enough to remember all the honeybees and butterflies we had in our clover-covered backyard every summer when we lived in Monticello, before pesticides brought their numbers down to the small remnant we see today. We avoided the total disappearance Rachel Carson had warned us about by banning DDT just in time, but though stabilized (until recently) neither has ever recovered. Nowdays I see far more bumblebees than honeybees, a complete reversal of the way things used to be. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to bats, and for the last of the honeybees to go the way of the Chestnut and the Elm.
Time to put out a bat house, I think. They need all the help they can get . . .
--JDR
*personally, I suspect the extreme stress commercial honeybee colonies are under these days, and the profoundly unnatural way of life they experience by being fed on corn syrup and constantly trucked crosscountry from crop to crop, as the key underlying factor.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501ap_bat_die_off.html
This is particularly disturbing, given that they've still not figured out why a large percentage of America's honeybees died last year, other than to give the phenomenon a name ("Colony Collapse Discover", or CCD).* And, while many people are inexplicably afraid of bats (mainly because of the rabies myth), we need them, both as pollinators and as devourers of vast quantities of bugs. The fewer bats, the more mosquitoes--which is bad in these days of West Nile Virus and depleted bee populations.
I'm old enough to remember all the honeybees and butterflies we had in our clover-covered backyard every summer when we lived in Monticello, before pesticides brought their numbers down to the small remnant we see today. We avoided the total disappearance Rachel Carson had warned us about by banning DDT just in time, but though stabilized (until recently) neither has ever recovered. Nowdays I see far more bumblebees than honeybees, a complete reversal of the way things used to be. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to bats, and for the last of the honeybees to go the way of the Chestnut and the Elm.
Time to put out a bat house, I think. They need all the help they can get . . .
--JDR
*personally, I suspect the extreme stress commercial honeybee colonies are under these days, and the profoundly unnatural way of life they experience by being fed on corn syrup and constantly trucked crosscountry from crop to crop, as the key underlying factor.
Monday, February 4, 2008
I am Interviewed . . .
. . . by the NATIONAL REVIEW. You can listen to the ten-minute audio interview here at their NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE site:
www.http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/
This was recorded about a month ago; listening to it now, I'm grateful to find that I seem to be reasonably coherent and that either I avoided too many 'umm's or else they seamlessly edited them out. Having listened to some of the other interviews posted on the same site in preparation for my own, I'm inclined to credit this to John J. Miller's being a good interviewer. And they certainly cover a wide range of topics and authors, from Rbt E. Howard's CONAN to a new biography of Joseph McCarthy.
Most of what I say in the interview will be familiar to anyone who's read my book; I think the one point I stressed that I may have only mentioned in passing before is the degree to which THE HOBBIT marks an ambitious step in Tolkien's career as a writer. It is his first book-length work of fiction, more than twice the length of ROVERANDOM or the 1930 QUENTA. Only THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, or all Tolkien's previous work, is as long, and that was composed of many short tales linked by a frame story modeled upon Morris's THE EARTHLY PARADISE and, besides, left unfinished.
The one point in my book I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet in any of the reviews or discussions I've seen? My argument that, according to my reconstruction of the original outline for THE HOBBIT, the Battle of Five Armies was originally to take place not at the Lonely Mountain but on Bilbo's return journey, in the Anduin River valley between Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains. I suspect this is simply because that comes so many hundreds of pages into the book(s) that not that many people have made it that far yet. We'll see.
--John R.
www.http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/
This was recorded about a month ago; listening to it now, I'm grateful to find that I seem to be reasonably coherent and that either I avoided too many 'umm's or else they seamlessly edited them out. Having listened to some of the other interviews posted on the same site in preparation for my own, I'm inclined to credit this to John J. Miller's being a good interviewer. And they certainly cover a wide range of topics and authors, from Rbt E. Howard's CONAN to a new biography of Joseph McCarthy.
Most of what I say in the interview will be familiar to anyone who's read my book; I think the one point I stressed that I may have only mentioned in passing before is the degree to which THE HOBBIT marks an ambitious step in Tolkien's career as a writer. It is his first book-length work of fiction, more than twice the length of ROVERANDOM or the 1930 QUENTA. Only THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, or all Tolkien's previous work, is as long, and that was composed of many short tales linked by a frame story modeled upon Morris's THE EARTHLY PARADISE and, besides, left unfinished.
The one point in my book I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet in any of the reviews or discussions I've seen? My argument that, according to my reconstruction of the original outline for THE HOBBIT, the Battle of Five Armies was originally to take place not at the Lonely Mountain but on Bilbo's return journey, in the Anduin River valley between Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains. I suspect this is simply because that comes so many hundreds of pages into the book(s) that not that many people have made it that far yet. We'll see.
--John R.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Passings
So, yesterday a language went extinct.
To be more specific, the last living member of the Eyak people died at age 89.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7206411.stm
Although she helped scholars create a dictionary so that some of her people's language could be preserved, she was the last native speaker; her children grew up speaking only English. Nor is this situation unusual: in fact, the article goes on to note that about twenty other Alaskan languages are in similar straits. John McWhorter, in THE POWER OF BABEL, estimates that ninety percent of all languages spoken at the time his book was written [2001] will be extinct by the end of this century, with most of the rest reduced to the status of secondary languages used in the home, but not for day-to-day communications.
And, speaking of passings, it turns out that earlier this month the last German veteran of World War I passed away quietly at the age of 107:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_obit_last_german_veteran.html
--John R.
To be more specific, the last living member of the Eyak people died at age 89.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7206411.stm
Although she helped scholars create a dictionary so that some of her people's language could be preserved, she was the last native speaker; her children grew up speaking only English. Nor is this situation unusual: in fact, the article goes on to note that about twenty other Alaskan languages are in similar straits. John McWhorter, in THE POWER OF BABEL, estimates that ninety percent of all languages spoken at the time his book was written [2001] will be extinct by the end of this century, with most of the rest reduced to the status of secondary languages used in the home, but not for day-to-day communications.
And, speaking of passings, it turns out that earlier this month the last German veteran of World War I passed away quietly at the age of 107:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_obit_last_german_veteran.html
--John R.
Tolkien Sighting
So, the other night we watched FOYLE'S WAR on PBS's MYSTERY, about an English police inspector trying to do his job (solve crimes and catch murderers) in trying times (WWII England). Pretty good: well-acted main parts (particularly the American commander in charge of setting up a new airbase), and an interesting backdrop in wartime England. The surprise came when they worked in a sly Tolkien reference that went by so quickly you'd miss it if you blinked. A young American soldier and his new English girlfriend from the local village are enjoying some small talk after a tryst in a farmer's barn when they hear first one shot and then another outside. She's a bit startled and asks what that noise was, and the American reassures her, saying it's probably just Farmer Giles, firing off his blunderbuss.
This is anachronistic, of course, given that FARMER GILES OF HAM wasn't published until 1949; although it was in existence by 1936 there's no way a young American soldier at Hastings could know about it in 1942-43. Still, it's nice to see the writers work in a subtle Tolkien reference they knew most of their audience wd miss. I'll definitely be watching to see if there are others.
--John R.
This is anachronistic, of course, given that FARMER GILES OF HAM wasn't published until 1949; although it was in existence by 1936 there's no way a young American soldier at Hastings could know about it in 1942-43. Still, it's nice to see the writers work in a subtle Tolkien reference they knew most of their audience wd miss. I'll definitely be watching to see if there are others.
--John R.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Britain's '50 Greatest' Postwar Writers
So, last week a friend in London sent me the following link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3127837.ece
For those who have trouble opening the link, here's the list itself:
1. Philip Larkin
2. George Orwell
3. William Golding
4. Ted Hughes
5. Doris Lessing
6. J. R. R. Tolkien
7. V. S. Naipaul
8. Muriel Spark
9. Kingsley Amis
10. Angela Carter
11. C. S. Lewis
12. Iris Murdoch
13. Salman Rushdie
14. Ian Fleming
15. Jan Morris
16. Roald Dahl
17. Anthony Burgess
18. Mervyn Peake
19. Martin Amis
20. Anthony Powell
21. Alan Sillitoe
22. John Le Carré
23. Penelope Fitzgerald
24. Philippa Pearce
25. Barbara Pym
26. Beryl Bainbridge
27. J. G. Ballard
28. Alan Garner
29. Alasdair Gray
30. John Fowles
31. Derek Walcott
32. Kazuo Ishiguro
33. Anita Brookner
34. A. S. Byatt
35. Ian McEwan
36. Geoffrey Hill
37. Hanif Kureishi
38. Iain Banks
39. George Mackay Brown
40. A. J. P. Taylor
41. Isaiah Berlin
42. J. K. Rowling
43. Philip Pullman
44. Julian Barnes
45. Colin Thubron
46. Bruce Chatwin
47. Alice Oswald
48. Benjamin Zephaniah
49. Rosemary Sutcliff
50. Michael Moorcock
Naturally, I'm delighted to see Tolkien in the top ten, especially since for the most part he's in very good company up there (I'd have left out Carter and bumped up Fowles about twenty spots). And it's nice that Larkin, a favorite of mine, did so well. I'm also pleased to see Pullman and Rowlings made the list, although near the bottom. It's interesting that three of the figures Shippey linked in AUTHOR OF THE CENTURY (Tolkien, Golding, Orwell) made the top six here (the fourth, Vonnegut, is ineligible, being an American). But what a strange list it is. Most writers whose careers straddled the 1945 divide were omitted (e.g. Waugh, Huxley, Wodehouse, Eliot, Carey, Dylan Thomas), even when they continued to produce major works for decades (the majority of Grahame Greene's and Auden's careers were post-war). Yet Orwell, who died in 1950 and was unable to write for the last year or two of his life due to illness, made it in the top two.
Looking over the list as a whole, the two authors I think they really shd have made room for are (1) Richard Adams, not just for WATERSHIP DOWN (there's really nothing else quite like it) but also GIRL ON A SWING, and (2) Neil Gaiman -- although he now lives in the U.S. that shdn't disqualify him.
Others I could make an argument for including include Dick Francis, for the sheer literary quality of his detective novels; Terry Pratchett, who at his best is v. gd indeed; and Douglas Adams (as a radio scriptwriter, not a novelist). I think some figures are in there for historical significance rather than any literary quality --e.g., Fleming for having invented the modern spy novel and Le Carre for having drearied it down; Ellis Peters, if it comes to that, is a better writer than either.
Figures I'd drop include Carter, Rushdie (being a cause celebre does not a talented writer make), Peake, and of course Moorcock (a hack, however prolific, doesn't deserve a spot). I'd also replace A. Garner with K. Briggs: HOBBERDY DICK is hard to beat.
Still, an interesting list, and one they clearly kept an open mind about. Good for them!
--JDR
current reading: THE COMPANY THEY KEEP (Pavlac-Glyer), BANKER TO THE POOR (Yunus).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3127837.ece
For those who have trouble opening the link, here's the list itself:
1. Philip Larkin
2. George Orwell
3. William Golding
4. Ted Hughes
5. Doris Lessing
6. J. R. R. Tolkien
7. V. S. Naipaul
8. Muriel Spark
9. Kingsley Amis
10. Angela Carter
11. C. S. Lewis
12. Iris Murdoch
13. Salman Rushdie
14. Ian Fleming
15. Jan Morris
16. Roald Dahl
17. Anthony Burgess
18. Mervyn Peake
19. Martin Amis
20. Anthony Powell
21. Alan Sillitoe
22. John Le Carré
23. Penelope Fitzgerald
24. Philippa Pearce
25. Barbara Pym
26. Beryl Bainbridge
27. J. G. Ballard
28. Alan Garner
29. Alasdair Gray
30. John Fowles
31. Derek Walcott
32. Kazuo Ishiguro
33. Anita Brookner
34. A. S. Byatt
35. Ian McEwan
36. Geoffrey Hill
37. Hanif Kureishi
38. Iain Banks
39. George Mackay Brown
40. A. J. P. Taylor
41. Isaiah Berlin
42. J. K. Rowling
43. Philip Pullman
44. Julian Barnes
45. Colin Thubron
46. Bruce Chatwin
47. Alice Oswald
48. Benjamin Zephaniah
49. Rosemary Sutcliff
50. Michael Moorcock
Naturally, I'm delighted to see Tolkien in the top ten, especially since for the most part he's in very good company up there (I'd have left out Carter and bumped up Fowles about twenty spots). And it's nice that Larkin, a favorite of mine, did so well. I'm also pleased to see Pullman and Rowlings made the list, although near the bottom. It's interesting that three of the figures Shippey linked in AUTHOR OF THE CENTURY (Tolkien, Golding, Orwell) made the top six here (the fourth, Vonnegut, is ineligible, being an American). But what a strange list it is. Most writers whose careers straddled the 1945 divide were omitted (e.g. Waugh, Huxley, Wodehouse, Eliot, Carey, Dylan Thomas), even when they continued to produce major works for decades (the majority of Grahame Greene's and Auden's careers were post-war). Yet Orwell, who died in 1950 and was unable to write for the last year or two of his life due to illness, made it in the top two.
Looking over the list as a whole, the two authors I think they really shd have made room for are (1) Richard Adams, not just for WATERSHIP DOWN (there's really nothing else quite like it) but also GIRL ON A SWING, and (2) Neil Gaiman -- although he now lives in the U.S. that shdn't disqualify him.
Others I could make an argument for including include Dick Francis, for the sheer literary quality of his detective novels; Terry Pratchett, who at his best is v. gd indeed; and Douglas Adams (as a radio scriptwriter, not a novelist). I think some figures are in there for historical significance rather than any literary quality --e.g., Fleming for having invented the modern spy novel and Le Carre for having drearied it down; Ellis Peters, if it comes to that, is a better writer than either.
Figures I'd drop include Carter, Rushdie (being a cause celebre does not a talented writer make), Peake, and of course Moorcock (a hack, however prolific, doesn't deserve a spot). I'd also replace A. Garner with K. Briggs: HOBBERDY DICK is hard to beat.
Still, an interesting list, and one they clearly kept an open mind about. Good for them!
--JDR
current reading: THE COMPANY THEY KEEP (Pavlac-Glyer), BANKER TO THE POOR (Yunus).
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Belated Tolkien's Birthday
Happy Belated Tolkien's birthday, all.
2007 was a big year for us, between finally completing and seeing published MR. BAGGINS and RETURN TO BAG-END, as well as making my first trip to England in thirteen years (and my first research trip in fifteen). 2008 also promises to be eventful, if somewhat more low key, as I absorb the research I did in Oxford and start sketching out the next project(s).
Thanks to all who sent in errata; I've passed along a list of corrections to the good folks at HarperCollins, who will be incorporating them into the forthcoming trade paperback edition, due out in March. This expanded edition will include Appendix V, which looks at whom Tolkien sent his author's copies of THE HOBBIT to, and the Addendum, some late material from 1965-66 that came to light too late for inclusion in the original edition. It's not many more pages, and I don't think any startling revelations are included therein, but I think folks will find these last few odds and ins interesting in and of themselves. More on this later.
Thanks also to the good folks at Houghton Mifflin, who pointed out to me a favorable review in the L. A. TIMES by Nick Owchar. My two favorite lines:
"Rateliff's labors have resulted in a rich treatment of the many changes, false starts and motivations behind Tolkien's storytelling choices."
and
"Rateliff's efforts have a paradoxical effect: Even as they demystify Tolkien and show us that there is no such thing as easy genius, they remind us that his willingness to endure numbing revisions to develop a nuanced story is even greater reason to revere him."
Needless to say, I've very pleased. The whole review can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-owchar30dec30,1,6672345.story?coll=la-headlines-bookreview
I've also done a ten-minute audio interview that should soon be posted online in what is, for me, an unlikely forum; I'll provide the link once it's up.
Finally, here's another little piece I came across that supports the argument that MR. BLISS dates from 1932 or '33, not the late '20s. In the same illustration that shows Gaffer Gamgee, a character who entered the family mythology following the Tolkiens' holiday to Lamora Cove in Cornwall in the summer of 1932, one of the shops on the street is ALLBONE the butcher (MR. BLISS page 36). Given the otherwise unexplained appearance of the name Allibone-Baggins in the final chapter of the first draft HOBBIT (soon to be renamed the Sackville-Bagginses), I would now suggest that the 'allibone' element is probably another family joke, the significance of which is lost. In any case, as with all the elements from THE HOBBIT incorporated into the 1932 FATHER CHRISTMAS LETTER, the Allbone/Allibone parallel suggests that MR. BLISS might have been written around the same time (1932-33) as the conclusion of THE HOBBIT (January 1933).
--JDR
2007 was a big year for us, between finally completing and seeing published MR. BAGGINS and RETURN TO BAG-END, as well as making my first trip to England in thirteen years (and my first research trip in fifteen). 2008 also promises to be eventful, if somewhat more low key, as I absorb the research I did in Oxford and start sketching out the next project(s).
Thanks to all who sent in errata; I've passed along a list of corrections to the good folks at HarperCollins, who will be incorporating them into the forthcoming trade paperback edition, due out in March. This expanded edition will include Appendix V, which looks at whom Tolkien sent his author's copies of THE HOBBIT to, and the Addendum, some late material from 1965-66 that came to light too late for inclusion in the original edition. It's not many more pages, and I don't think any startling revelations are included therein, but I think folks will find these last few odds and ins interesting in and of themselves. More on this later.
Thanks also to the good folks at Houghton Mifflin, who pointed out to me a favorable review in the L. A. TIMES by Nick Owchar. My two favorite lines:
"Rateliff's labors have resulted in a rich treatment of the many changes, false starts and motivations behind Tolkien's storytelling choices."
and
"Rateliff's efforts have a paradoxical effect: Even as they demystify Tolkien and show us that there is no such thing as easy genius, they remind us that his willingness to endure numbing revisions to develop a nuanced story is even greater reason to revere him."
Needless to say, I've very pleased. The whole review can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-owchar30dec30,1,6672345.story?coll=la-headlines-bookreview
I've also done a ten-minute audio interview that should soon be posted online in what is, for me, an unlikely forum; I'll provide the link once it's up.
Finally, here's another little piece I came across that supports the argument that MR. BLISS dates from 1932 or '33, not the late '20s. In the same illustration that shows Gaffer Gamgee, a character who entered the family mythology following the Tolkiens' holiday to Lamora Cove in Cornwall in the summer of 1932, one of the shops on the street is ALLBONE the butcher (MR. BLISS page 36). Given the otherwise unexplained appearance of the name Allibone-Baggins in the final chapter of the first draft HOBBIT (soon to be renamed the Sackville-Bagginses), I would now suggest that the 'allibone' element is probably another family joke, the significance of which is lost. In any case, as with all the elements from THE HOBBIT incorporated into the 1932 FATHER CHRISTMAS LETTER, the Allbone/Allibone parallel suggests that MR. BLISS might have been written around the same time (1932-33) as the conclusion of THE HOBBIT (January 1933).
--JDR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
