Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Jan Bogstad's Call for Papers (HOBBIT movie book)

So, a few weeks ago (the 8th, I think)  I got a copy of the Call for Papers for a new collection of essays comparing Peter Jackson's film trilogy of THE HOBBIT with Tolkien's original book. This is the second Tolkien/Jackson anthology edited by Jan Bogstad, the first having been PICTURING TOLKIEN (2011), co-edited with Phil Kaveny, to which I contributed a piece on Tom Bombadil. I don't have any piece appropriate to submit to this collection, as well as being fully booked up on other commitments for the next year or so, but it's a subject I'm deeply interested in and I'll be looking forward to reading the resultant book. Since the best way I can think of helping is to spread the word, I've copied and pasted the Call for Papers into this post. Here are the details:


    Edited by Dr. Janice M Bogstad

Call for papers for an essay collection -12-15 essays of 6000-8,000 words in length.  Contact me directly to request an exception.

The deadline for receipt of an abstract, for consideration, is November 1, 2015.
 Final manuscripts are due January 1, 2016 with encouragement for earlier submission. 

Send Abstracts and address queries to:            
Dr. Janice M. Bogstad, Professor  715-836-6032 (OFF.) 715 497 9963 (CELL)
McIntyre Library Rm 3040/3041
U of Wisconsin-Eau Claire   Eau Claire, WI  54702-5010

Manuscripts will be reviewed by at least one outside peer review in addition to the editor.

The collection will consider comparisons between Tolkien’s original Hobbit and the three Jackson films.  Of interest are structural parallels and differences, changes in character-focus from the book to the films, and considerations of philosophical differences in the overall message of Tolkien’s original book and Jackson’s films, but other well-supported arguments will also be considered.  As with the previously published Picturing Tolkien, this collection will focus on positive comparisons. Essayists may wish to discuss features of the film that are, in their judgment, less successful, but will be asked to hold condemnation of the cinematic text simply on the basis of its differences from the textual narrative.  Authors may decide to focus on the films or the novel but the primary focus is comparative features of both.  Contribution to Tolkien scholarship can be articulated with two concepts:  its audience is the informed reader, not only the Tolkien, literary or film critic.  Its basic framework is in respect of co-measurability, that the books and the films are co-creations with parallel structures that intersect at certain points.  Each should be examined and compared as if those comparisons and intersections are significant to understanding contemporary Tolkien studies.

Points of departure for essays may include, but are not limited to:
1.     The effects of the filmmaker/director/producer and writers on the final realization of the film as compared to the creation of the novel.
2.     The relationship between our mind’s eye and the eye of the camera, or the cinematic gaze in contemporary critical dialog on cinema is of central interest.
3.     The epic dimensions of Tolkien’s creation.  For example, J.R. R. Tolkien wanted the first editions to include a four-color copy of the original manuscript, but it was not included due to projected expense.  Manuscripts are more easily pictured in the films.
4.     Differences in the structural elements, parallels, comparisons, repetitions of visual and auditory elements, by which cinema creates meaning in comparison with written fiction
5.      The influence of Cinematic conventions and nostalgic elements related to the Lord of the Rings films and other fantastic films of the early 21st century. 

Here's looking forward to seeing what folks come up with.
--John R.

Word of the day: "abled".  Apparently a back-formation from 'disabled' (disabled/abled). Also encountered with a derisive application: "ableist" (= one insufficiently enlightened on issues re. the disabled). Think I'll stick with 'ept' and 'couth'.

No comments: