Reddit reviews The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

Keep in mind that Tolkien was alive when movies of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were first being discussed, and was involved in early attempts at adaptation. He wrote on this very subject in several of the letters.

He seems to have changed his mind somewhat, becoming more protective over time. In letter 198, he seems rather blasé about it: he thinks it's impossible to adapt his work, but doesn't seem terribly bothered by it, and would be willing to let them try.

Letter 210, though, shows Tolkien responding much more in depth to a script of a proposed adaptation. I think it's interesting that he seems concerned not only about how the writers failed to understand crucial aspects of his story, but also about how their changes would make for a poor film. In particular, in several instances Tolkien proposes imply cutting certain characters or scenes from the book rather than bastardizing them.

Two things:

1. Tolkien later regretted that arch, light, childish manner in which he wrote The Hobbit, and even attempted a revision that aligned it more with the style of LOTR (a revision he abandoned by the third chapter.)
   
   
2. Tolkien said that he looked forward to what other people would do with his world, how they might add to it with music, art, and architecture. He allowed that dreadful cartoon to be made. He seemed to understand that a different medium re-imagines the source material a little bit.
   
   Source: Tolkien's letters.
   

Please let me make this abundantly clear, I am not saying Tolkien is a racist in any way shape or form, simply that he did use race as an influence in his works.

“The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn’t you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic. The hobbits are just rustic English people,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-G_v6-u3hg Its in the last few minutes of this interview

and

“I do think of the ‘Dwarves’ like Jews,” he writes (Letters, p. 229), “at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue.” From the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein http://www.amazon.com/The-Letters-J-R-R-Tolkien-J/dp/0618056998


This one is pretty obvious to me, maybe not racist in a hatred, but definitely using a race as an influence. But the greed for gold doesn't really help.

It's a book, actually.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0618056998

He wrote extensively on the subject of adaptations, movies, and how he'd like his work to be seen and treated in the future.

Folks discussing Tolkien's intentions and desires who have not read this book are doing both themselves and their arguments a great disservice.

In The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, the man himself wrote:

> So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course, he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Theoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'.

Gandalf the White is everything that Gandalf the Grey is, only better.

Thought I'd provide some Amazon links to these fine suggestions, along with a few of my own.

J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0008214549/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_Jc.DCb1A3J8V6

​

Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/000755690X/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_Qe.DCbHG7HWXM

​

Art of the Lord of the Rings US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0544636341/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_3f.DCbB8Y2ZNZ

​

Art of the Hobbit US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0547928254/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_ng.DCbCX2CT65

​

Tolkien: Maker of Middle-Earth US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851244859/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_Vg.DCbSEH99RE

​

Rateliff's History of the Hobbit US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CF6AZWK/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_Dj.DCbGWY7970

​

Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-Earth US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618126996/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_Kk.DCbC2XF6NT

​

Letters of JRR Tolkien US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618056998/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_ml.DCbREBRZH4

​

Carpenter's Tolkien: A Biography US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618057021/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_xm.DCbY976PAE

As is his book on the Inklings. If you're looking for some of Tolkien's own insights into his writing or theology his letters are also a good place to look.

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

You may see it as such, but the Man himself did not wish it to be so. Rather than pull out my own copy of the Letters, I will instead point you to a post on another forum by one of the most knowledgeable Tolkien scholars I know of: see the second post in this thread.

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-R-Tolkien-J-R/dp/0618056998
An Amazon link to The Letters of Tolkien
Unfortunately I can't help you I asked because I plan to do the same after I finish with the Witcher and I wasn't sure about the order

amazon link

I've found them to give a phenomenal insight into Tolkien's mindset as he was writing LOTR during WWII. Also, if you're into that sort of thing, here's a great biography of his time spent during WWI

You might try getting your hands on a copy of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. There's a lot of great information on his work there, and I find them generally a little easier to read than the History of Middle-Earth.

The current print paperback is perfectly nice, for what it's worth. Very sturdy feeling. I have no plans to upgrade.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Letters-J-R-R-Tolkien-J/dp/0618056998

Here's the book if you want to support his legacy.

Some highlights;

>You will receive on Monday the copy of the 'Story Line' or synopsis of the proposed film version of The Lord of the Rings. I could not get it off yesterday.

>....An abridgement by selection with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-crowding
and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation: a pull-back towards more conventional 'fairy-stories'. People gallop about on Eagles at the least provocation; Lórien becomes a fairy-castle with 'delicate minarets', and all that sort of thing.

.
>Z ( Morton Grady Zimmerrnan, who was trying to get a film adaptation of the trilogy off the ground as far back as the 50s) .... has intruded a 'fairy castle' and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Faramir). He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important pan of this has, and it is not too strong a word,
simply been murdered.

The whole 210: From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman [Not dated; June 1958] letter is a scathing rebuke of attempts to convert the saga into film. Granted, some of them are dated (Tolkien in particular recognized the danger of convenient Eagles moreso than he had dared use in his own narrative), but a few still echo in Jackson's version...

>#9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness.

Also, one nice burn from the pen of the English professor:

> The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

See my earlier comment which quotes from The Letters of Tolkien.

There is absolutely zero textual evidence within the written narrative or the reams of paper published in Tolkien's letters and other materials to support that. Though he began as an angelic spirit, he ended up as a tyrant.

>In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.
>
> The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995

Yes, they were published as a book (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien), which I'm sure many libraries have copies of.

If you're read or seen "The Fellowship of the Ring", you'll remember that when Frodo noticed they were being stalked by Gollum in the Mines of Moria he said to Gandalf, "It's a pity that Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance."

To which Gandalf replied:

>>Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.

In his letters, Tolkien writes concerning the "Passion" of Frodo:

>>Frodo ‘failed’. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however ‘good’; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

And in another place he wrote:

>>In this case the cause (not the ‘hero’) was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this. See Vol. I p. 68-9. Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.

And just one more quote:

>>[Gollum] did rob him and injure [Frodo] in the end – but by a ‘grace’, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by ‘forgiveness’, he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden.

What may we take from this?

One, that "pity" or "forgiveness", in order to be worthy of the name, must be something done contrary to prudence, contrary to our "best interests".

In Luke's Gospel, Jesus says:

>>If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return...Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

You write:

>I tell my friend that I can forgive people who honestly apologize (something my father never has) and who make a true effort to better themselves. I can forgive people who ask for help and seek help when their problems become too much for them or their family.

But that's just as much as to say you can forgive the forgivable--as if forgiveness, as if mercy (pity), is something that has to be earned. But is that forgiveness? Is that love? To love only the lovable?

And you write:

>From a humanistic perspective, I think there is very little reason to forgive my father for the decades of hell and unnecessary stress he has put us through. My mom has wished several times that he would die soon - but God must have other plans because he will be in his mid-70s in 2017.

Indeed. Plans that we can neither imagine nor foresee. But just as the pity of Bilbo created a situation in which the Cause (though not the "hero") was successful, so your own forgiveness of your father--even though he doesn't deserve it, even if he hasn't merited it through genuine repentance--may have positive effects that you can't predict.

None of this is to excuse your father's behavior or to minimize the consequences of the pain your father's behavior has brought upon you, your mother, or your family. But hopefully I've shown why maybe you should forgiven him--not that by doing so you might hope for some positive outcome in a utilitarian sense, but simply for the ultimate belief in the "value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time."

(Quotes taken from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien, and The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien)

There is a book of 300+ of Tolkien's letters compiled by his son: The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Here for one. You could also check any libraries you have access to. I bought mine at a Borders several years ago (obviously before they shut down).

http://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-R-Tolkien-J-R/dp/0618056998/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395195004&sr=1-1&keywords=tolkien+letters

If you want to read it.

You might also enjoy two of my favorite short stories published in The Tolkien Reader, "Tree and Leaf" and "Farmer Giles of Ham." Tree and Leaf is always a great reminder read for me about the importance of spending your time in life on the things that are meaningful, and of devoting yourself fully to the moment rather than worrying about the past or the future.

Here you go. They're a gold mine. https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-R-Tolkien-J-R/dp/0618056998