For the Want of A Comma, the Lonely Mountain is Lost

 

I saw this on social media earlier today and was appalled.

Well, not to that pearl-clutching level, of course. But would Tolkien really forget to put the comma in the sentence "Bilbo knelt on one knee filled with sorrow."?

I have to wonder if I'm overreacting here (thus the pullback from the pearl-clutching). And I also thought, "I'll check in my own copy to see if this is a transcription error. So I looked and found this:

So either this is a perpetuated mistake, or the sentence

Bilbo knelt on one knee filled with sorrow.

doesn't need a comma, thus:

Bilbo knelt on one knee, filled with sorrow.

If it were me writing the sentence, I'd use the comma. But commas, in my mind, are mysterious objects and I often find I overuse them (except for the Oxford comma; I'm a big supporter of the Oxford comma).

So what say you? What say the rules? I need a ruling, or I may not be able to get to sleep tonight.

It Would Be A Merrier World . . .

[T]hey did not long maintain an entire peace in the land, for there began to be a contention among the people concerning the chief judge Pahoran; for behold, there were a part of the people who desired that a few particular points of the law should be altered.

But behold, Pahoran would not alter nor suffer the law to be altered; therefore, he did not hearken to those who had sent in their petitions concerning the altering of the law.

Therefore, those who were desirous that the law should be altered were angry with him, and desires that he should no longer be chief judge over the land; therefor there arose a warm dispute concerning the matter, but not unto bloodshed.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Pahoran should be dethroned from the judgement-seat were called king-men, for they were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen, and Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the bretheren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty, who also put the king-men to silence, that they durst not oppose but were obliged to maintain the cause of freedom.

This, from Alma Chapter 51 in The Book of Mormon.

Significant that when the voice of the people settled the matter, the king-men were "put to silence" and obliged "to maintain the cause of liberty." Unless you know whether they were forced into silence or realized at the time that their cause was not popular enough to succeed, be silent on whether force was used. Because you don't know. I don't know either.

I do know as soon as Amalickiah came along at the head of the Lamanite army to battle the Nephites, these same king-men saw their chance and refused to fight. I don't know if thy thought life would be better with a Lamanite king in charge, and neither do you. So let's not speculate, We are told they did not fight and left their land in a perilous state.

I don't know what parallels to draw between this and what happened in Washington today. But there must be some.

I'm trying not to despair.

I'm trying to be like Samwise Gamgee, the real hero of the story:

FRODO: I can't do this, Sam.

SAM: I know. By all rights we shouldn't be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. Sometimes you didn't want to know the end, because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing. The shadow -- even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it'll shine out the clearer. Those are the stories that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

FRODO: What are we holding on to, Sam?

SAM: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for.

And what Gandalf told Frodo; counsel I relied on on Sept. 11, 2001. So long ago.

And there is so much good in the world. I feel Thorin coming on.

Trying not to Fossilize, or Avoiding Elf Stasis

Zoom is what did it.

Zoom, of course, is the online collaboration platform, where one can have video presentations, chats, and other meetings and such with widely-dispersed groups. We use Zoom at BYU-Idaho in our teaching groups, where we may have teachers from across the nation working together to become better teachers in a teacherly way.

But this semester – it took me five weeks to find my way into the group chat. Because things had changed.

Or maybe not changed. I haven’t used Zoom much, and when we have meetings, I get a link to them. To go into the program – annoying called apps these days – was something I hadn’t done in a long time. So it took some time to remember how to get there. And how to log in. And what my password was. And to realize I didn’t need my password if I used a push notification which, thankfully, I have used more often and remembered how to do.

So there I was, stumbling into the chat four weeks after the fact, like an Elf finally giving up on Middle-Earth and heading to the Grey Havens to sail to the Undying Lands.

Elves, we have to remember form Tolkien’s universe, love stasis.* Their world was perfect, so why change that? But due to the meddling and weaknesses of men – and the scheming of those who destroyed Numenor and brought their evil to Middle-Earth – their existence was threatened and their stability shattered. Though they hadn’t given into the corruption of the One Ring, it hung heavily over their heads, viz:



So when stasis could not be maintained in Middle-Earth, they departed for Valinor, where their stasis could be maintained.

I’m evolving into a technological elf. I want things to remain the same. I’m tired, for example, of our teaching groups changing each semester, having to find the new place in the community, It’s awful.

But I need to be adaptable. Things will change and continue to change, and those who refuse to change are doomed to wander, lustrous and beautiful, in a world that no longer suits them.

*Warning: Major Nerd Alert

3-Minute Follow-Up

So I’ve finished reading Gary Raymond’s 3-Minute JRR Tolkien.

It didn’t get any better. In fact, it got worse.

The segments on the Peter Jackson films and on LOTR-related games, both in the physical and digital world, seemed utterly useless, dry repetitions of fact adding nothing to the story of Tolkien. Yes, he spawned a lot of imitators and hangers-on and slightly odd people dressing up in costumes and working along in basements trying to come up with new ways to make elves disappear. How is any of that information going to make me an “instant expert” on Tolkien?

Forget this book. The best of it could be summed up in a tweet, penned by Raymond himself:

You’ll have to read Tolkien’s own works to fully appreciate and enjoy his genius.

None of anything else in this book is necessary, interesting, or particularly enlightening. So I’ll step out of the way. Enjoy.

3-Minute Joking

Part of me is disappointed in Gary Raymond’s “unauthorized biography” 3-Minute JRR Tolkien. As of this writing (and I will update this as I go along) I’m about halfway through, and frankly wonder why Raymond bothered.

I’m guessing his target audience isn’t the die-hard Tolkien fan because none of them would think much of this book (though, as a semi-professional fan, I do commend its collection of Tolkien, Hobbit, and LOTR-related illustrations and photographs up until Peter Jackson’s movies are mentioned, though I’m curious to know why much of the art and photographs go unannotated, offering no clues to their origin or significance). Of particular uselessness to Tolkien die-hards are Raymond’s plot summaries of The Hobbit as well as The Lord of the Rings.

So the audience is the Tolkien virgin, those looking for a compendium of Tolkiengalia in order to form the basest of understandings of what the hell their obsessed friends are talking about. But even at that, this book fails – Tolkein’s Wikipedia article has more breadth and depth as an autobiography as this collection possesses.

Even John Howe’s introduction to the book is patently useless, as he drones on about how myths are central to our being as humans except that we don’t tell myths any more, blah blah blah which is, of course, the Big Lie in Tolkien fandom – there is plenty of myth-making and myth-telling in literature, movie-making, and general story-telling beyond the Time of Tolkien, they just choose to turn their toffee noses up at it in order to hold their lord of the rings up on that highest rung. (I will concede Tolkien has no equal in creating his mythological backstory, but to claim modern myth-making as Tolkien’s sovereign territory is unquestionably false.)

Raymond seems to think presenting this basic information in a way in which it is digestible and cross-linked and easily ponderable is more important than the information presented. In his own introduction 9under the heading “Instant Expert,” he writes:

The structure of the book means that each of the three chapters will take about an hour to digest and that the whole book will furnish you with a solid understanding of the life history, literary highlights, and important of JRR Tolkien in about three hours. In addition to all that, each chapter concludes with a timeline and glossary to help you keep your thoughts in order. You’ll have to read Tolkien’s own works to fully appreciate and enjoy his genius, but this is the quickest way to discover the man behind the magic and the real-world experiences that helped shape the most fully realized fantasy landscape in literature.

In other words, go read the books. But buy this one, because, well, it’ll give you all that. It’ll look good on the shelf. And won’t impress your Tolkien-soaked friends one bit, since they’ve watched the DVD extras on Peter Jackson’s films, which offer a lot more information than this book does, and know the related Wikipedia entries by heart. (Side note: The book’s British publisher, Ivy Press, seems to make a go at producing such 3-minute biographies (they’ve done Stephen Hawking, for example).  A tell-tale tell of the weight of these books: “Each topic divided into 3-minute bites that you can absorb almost without pausing for thought” in the description of the Hawking book. NOT a good sign, folks. (Neither is the appellation of “instant expert.” I learned time and again as a journalist that the line between instant expert and instant asshole is razor thin.)

But is this a book? It’s odd in that in some ways this biography resembles an HTML page, with odd snatches of text bolded as if they were meant to be hyperlinks. I keep wanting to click on them, for example, to see what the author’s own worries had to do with crafting of The Hobbit. But, alas, the page is dead. Raymond does cross reference this biography lightly, on each page offering us related thoughts if we want to pursue banal previous or future sections of the book as we read the banal page we’re on now.

This book is likely doomed to the same fate of fellow Inkling C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters,” of which Lewis himself said is the kind of book that gravitates to guest bedrooms or ends up being read because of the three or so “scholarly” works offered to reading circles, it’s the shortest. It reads, frankly, like one of the papers offered in Gopher Prairie, Minnesota’s Thanatopsis Club in Sinclair Lewis’ Main Street (more on this particular Lewis later). Lewis mocked the intellectual shallowness of GP’s leading citizens in seeking out the birth and death dates of famous writers, covering all of English poetry, say, in one day, and leaving feeling educated about them.

I do concede I have learned one new thing by reading this book – that Tolkien found some inspiration in Sinclair Lewis’ Babbitt in naming the Hobbits, and that many professional English-language babblers have made much hay of that connection since. But otherwise this book as a biography and as a collection of Tolkien tokens is a disappointment.

The Hobbit and Mr. Deitch

As cool as Gene Deitch's "Tom and Jerry" cartoons are, I have to think it was a good thing that this version of JRR Tolkien's "The Hobbit" never saw the light of day until now. The story is so altered. It's not the art that bothers me -- I realize this is a scratch film, used to show that perhaps those with the ideas could pull it off. It's nice '60s pop art. But they meddled with the story so much, it's disgusting.

Reading Aloud

Reading Aloud

I wonder, listening to JRR Tolkien reading “Riddles in the Dark” from his novel “The Hobbit,” how often did Tolkien read what he wrote aloud? I think quite often. Or at least I hope so. Because it pours out so liltingly, so smoothly, with quotes merging with exposition, dribbled out like the drips falling from stalactites into the murk of Gollum’s lake. I hope, as he read it aloud and drafted it, he enjoyed stumbling upon the thought of meshing Gollum’s throughs with his words, Bilbo’s with his, as they tried to keep the small talk going while pondering what to do, whether Gollum was hungry, whether Gollum was dangerous – certainly he was – or not.

I’m sure he read aloud. A lot. He loved the old sagas, passed on from one generation to another as oral poems or songs, rarely written down. That’s why his stories, his prose and poetry, is so vivid.

And surely he spent a lot of time listening to others read aloud, sing aloud, so he could get those natural rhythms into his own writing.

Yes, I’m sure he read aloud. And read a lot.

Treasury of Laughter Has Returned . . . Again

All right everyone out there in Blog Land, the Treasury of Laughter is back. Cue the appropriate scene:

Used here under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Advance film to about 4:06.

And yeah, if this blog had any audience at all, I’m sure they’d be giving me the same stunned-bunny looks those Lake-Men give Thorin when he pops out of that barrel. But no matter. I’m back, and that’s what counts.

Thinking Like Tolkien

This photo is in the public domain.

When J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a letter in 1951 to Milton Waldman, a friend of his at Collins publishers, he outlined in a few brief sentences how he created the world that is Middle Earth and the stories that make up the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings:

My Dear Milton,

You asked for a brief sketch of my stuff that is connected with my imaginary world. It is difficult to say anything without saying too much: the attempt to say a few words opens a floodgate of excitement, the egoist and artist at once desires to say how the stuff has grown, what it is like, and what (he thinks) he means or is trying to represent by it all.

In order of time, growth, and composition, this stuff began with me – though I do not suppose that that is of much interest to anyone but myself. I mean, I do not remember a time when I was not building it. Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write. But I have never stopped, and of course, as a professional, philologist (especially interested in linguistic aesthetics), I have changed in taste, improved in theory, and probably in craft.

When I’m feeling discouraged as a writer, I open my copy of The Silmarillion, in which an extract of this letter appears, and I re-read it. And every time I hear Tolkien say “though I do not suppose that that is of much interest to anyone but myself,” I pause and say to him, in my imaginary world where we sit and talk, that what he says about the craft is certainly of great interest to me.

Tolkien never stopped. Never, like the elves, or Theoden, or Denethor, Steward of Minas Tirith, did Tolkien rest in stasis. He so wanted to find a world of myth (not allegory, he repeated often) to connect himself with the earliest of Britons, but because he never found it, he created it. He let the egoist and artist within shape and evolve, he “changed in taste, improved in theory, and probably in craft” over time as he studied and pondered and wrote.

That’s how you create a world, and it takes a lifetime.

Do I consider that a discouraging thought, you might ask. How can that possibly aid me, a person who has so little depth in his taste, theory, and craft, that I can never hope to be Tolkien’s equal?

I don’t know. But it does. It shows me it can be done. It shows me that 90 percent of the effort Tolkien put into his stories is the research, the thinking, the picking at ideas, the avoidance of stasis. The rest – the writing – came easy. So as I pursue the writing projects I’m working on, I, too, work to emphasize the behind the scenes, the thinking, the research. I’ve got a few projects that I’ve been working on for years. I’ve experimented with some of the writing, and when the writing comes difficult I know it’s not because I’m a lousy writer, but because I haven’t done enough thinking or research of any kind. So I put the pen down, I walk away from the keyboard, and do some more of the thinking.

That doesn’t stop me from writing; to stop writing puts one in a state of stasis that Tolkien obviously avoided. But I write a snatch here and a snitch there, working on one project as a writer to feed the egoist and artist while other projects gather more bits of fluff and hair to add to the ball.

Rolling Down A Hole With Glee

The news I got on Twitter this morning made me as happy as the Mirkwood Elves:

Yeah, Peter Jackson is going to direct "The Hobbit." Nothing against all the other folks who were atached to direct, or teased about in the media. But for anyone else but Jackson to take "The Hobbit" home never made sense to me. You can read the exclusive here.

I've loved these stories since I was a very little kid. My older brother Jeff had the vinyl album from the Rankin/Bass version of the story, and we wore it out listening.

I'm thrilled for the movie to be moving forward with Jackson at the helm. I'm sure this guy would be pretty happy too:

The Little Book of Plagiarism

I just finished reading Richard A. Posner's "The Little Book of Plagiarism" tonight, and thought I'd share a few well-sourced thoughts.

I'm especially intrigued by what Posner calls a "cult of personality" (p. 67) which he describes thusly:

Each of us thinks that our contribution to society is unique and so deserves public recognition, which plagiarism clouds. Individualism also creates heterogenity of demands for expressive and intellectual products, as of physical products and ordinary commercial services; and the greater the demand for variety -- for many new things rather than incremental improvement of the old -- the greater the demand for originality.

I think he postulates that ego -- even ego supporting mediocrity -- is both the source of the plagiarist's drive and the drive of others to root out, expose, and punish the plagiarism others commit. There is a feeling, he says, that in order to be successful, one has to create swiftly and regularly, and that plagiarism aids in this process. There is also the feeling that catching those who plagiarize legitimizes, at least temporarily, our inability to e original or creative -- we say, "Look, they're not creative or original, they're thieves."

To parallel this, Posner suggests the solution may not be in strict punishment of the plagiarist -- although he acknowledges some punishment is justified -- but rather in a redefinition of originality that focuses on creativity, not necessarily uniqueness.

I look at the fantasy genre as a good example of creativity over uniqueness as strong evidence that originality, while admirable, may be overrated, and is a poor excuse for condoning plagiarism. J.R.R. Tolkein, in my opinion, owns the fantasy genre and will continue to own it for many years to come. Others who write in this genre will invariably be compared, favorably or unfavorably, to him. That's because of the nature of the genre: Unexpected heroes, journeys, pitched battles against overwhelming forces of evil, magic, mysticism, and, as Tolkein himself might put it, "the unexpected luck of widows' sons" (from The Hobbit). Finding a truly original approach or story line or characterization in the genre is, in my opinion, nigh to impossible. That does not mean, however, that creativity is impossible. That Tolkein owns the fantasy genre is a boon to those who would create in this genre as well, as Tolkein helped establish the genre as a modern phenomenon. There are few original writers in the genre. There are, however, countless creative writers in the genre, and if, by plot, setting, characterization and other elements the stories may appear similar, there is a wide forgiveness among fans of the genre. I can lionize Tolkein, but at the same time accept the works of C.S. Lewis, Terry Pratchett, Robert Aspirin, Frank Herbert, Clark Ashton Smith (though he came mostly before the Tolkein phenomenon) and Ray Bradbury, thanking my lucky stars that while they may not be original and unique, they are all ultimately entertainingly creative. That's what I look for in an author.

So, to say that originality is dead and use that as a cop out for plagiarism, patchwriting, or any other such shady writing approaches, is reprehensible. Want to re-tell the story of Silas Marner or Cyrano de Bergerac? That's fine. Look at screenwriter Steve Martin for such excellent treatment which he freely attributes to the original authors. Want to enjoy a fine parody of Gaston Leroux's Phantom of the Opera? Read Pratchett's Maskerade. Wonderful creativity, even if the book is directly derivative of Leroux's original work.

Even the things I'm writing now are hardly original. I hope, however, to prove they are creative in the end.

Posner defends such approaches, as do I.

Anyone seriously struggling with the creative ego or pondering a delving into plagiarism would do well to read Posner's book and consider his arguments on creativity versus originality. They're well worth the read.

Going on Wacation

Blogging will be intermittent over the next several days. Not that anybody cares, but just in case. We're on vacation from our problems. We may go sailing. ("I'm sailing! I'm sailing! Far away from the dock! Ahoy!") Work will not be missed. School will not be missed. The dog will be missed a bit. But not enough to get us to take her with us. No sir.

I've got to say one thing, though: Just read about the two Colorado teenagers who killed a 7-year-old by beating her to death using moves from the "Mortal Kombat" video game. This isn't going to be a rant about video games inspiring violence, because, in fact, they don't. At least in everybody. But ya gotta wonder about these two simpletons, and the drunk idiot who didn't intervene. It's just stupidity, plain and simple.

I have three kids of my own. Each time I read of someone hurting or killing a child, I cringe. I cringe at death in general, of course. Even for those who may "deserve" it, as many people say in justifying their blood lust. I don't buy into that. Guess you could say I subscribe to the Gandalf/J.R.R. Tolkein view: Many deserve death who live, and many who die deserve life. I also believe in that funny little commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and don't agree with any Orwellian tinkering with that commandment, even as such tinkering appears in the Bible. Don't like that. I have a hard time reconciling it. I haven't succeeded, because it's hard to me to see how anyone can add "without a cause" to that commandment. Can we give life to people? We can't. So we shouldn't encourage dealing it out, whether through the death penalty or our own fists. Death for death, tit for tat shows weakness, not strength.