Tolkien Expressed a “Heartfelt Loathing” for Walt Disney(openculture.com)
openculture.com
Tolkien Expressed a “Heartfelt Loathing” for Walt Disney
http://www.openculture.com/2018/05/j-r-r-tolkien-expressed-a-heartfelt-loathing-for-walt-disney.html
175 comments
The worldview of Tolkien and Lewis was deeply inspired by their academic understanding of medieval cosmology. Dwarves and other fantasy creatures were not strictly "made up", but were types meant to reveal the reality of invisible spiritual and celestial creatures within the model of the universe. Disney's treatment of said creatures was barbaric in their minds as it completely missed the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate.
I'm not sure of the validity of this. Those fantasy creatures if anything tend not to have any real theology or philosophy behind them in practice. Elves steal babies and leave changelings, but why? There is no real explanation. Elves can be told from humans in some traditions because their backs are hollow. Why? Again no real codified theology or philosophy of elves; if anything, they often vary so much and tales are so sparse its hard to tell.
Tolkien and Lewis were part of a cohort that really enjoyed a form of pagan Germanish/norse Romanticism. Novalis was a big influence, and Lewis was quite open about his love for the Eddas. Both of them also were devout Christians, and I feel this response is more of them attempting to baptize the things that they love in a Christian sense. Christian philosophy tends to find in many things God working in them to bring people to awareness of Him, and ultimately to a saving reconciliation through Christ. But that tends to impute characteristics that go beyond the actual intents of the works as written, sort of a metatextual thing which can be valid in a sense (lewis's love of romanticism probably did awaken him to Christianity) but otherwise isn't, since each person would approach the work differently.
As for barbaric, ugh. Tolkien bowdlerized the old myths as much as anyone, with his happy little Hobbitses enjoying their baccy and his noble, stately ageless elves. In the old myths elves stole babies, made milk curdle, inflicted sickness through elf-shot, and much more.
Tolkien to be blunt is a huge snob. He loves his happy little common people so long as they are the right type, little red-nosed burghers who live on their green farms and enjoy good pipeweed. If they are the wrong type, if they happen to work in factories instead, well there are your orcs and goblins. It's no coincidence the Trolls in the hobbit speak cockney. he dislikes Disney because Disney is vulgar in the old sense, low culture, but seems to forget that a belief in elves or fairies was pure low culture, until romanticism made the elites interested in it. Chesterton says you need to be a common bumpkin (like himself) to really deal with them.
Tolkien and Lewis were part of a cohort that really enjoyed a form of pagan Germanish/norse Romanticism. Novalis was a big influence, and Lewis was quite open about his love for the Eddas. Both of them also were devout Christians, and I feel this response is more of them attempting to baptize the things that they love in a Christian sense. Christian philosophy tends to find in many things God working in them to bring people to awareness of Him, and ultimately to a saving reconciliation through Christ. But that tends to impute characteristics that go beyond the actual intents of the works as written, sort of a metatextual thing which can be valid in a sense (lewis's love of romanticism probably did awaken him to Christianity) but otherwise isn't, since each person would approach the work differently.
As for barbaric, ugh. Tolkien bowdlerized the old myths as much as anyone, with his happy little Hobbitses enjoying their baccy and his noble, stately ageless elves. In the old myths elves stole babies, made milk curdle, inflicted sickness through elf-shot, and much more.
Tolkien to be blunt is a huge snob. He loves his happy little common people so long as they are the right type, little red-nosed burghers who live on their green farms and enjoy good pipeweed. If they are the wrong type, if they happen to work in factories instead, well there are your orcs and goblins. It's no coincidence the Trolls in the hobbit speak cockney. he dislikes Disney because Disney is vulgar in the old sense, low culture, but seems to forget that a belief in elves or fairies was pure low culture, until romanticism made the elites interested in it. Chesterton says you need to be a common bumpkin (like himself) to really deal with them.
What was the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate?
They believed the universe was ordered and maintained by a celestial hierarchy with the Creator at the top. Places like Middle Earth and Narnia are metaphors of the model. Lewis's "The Discarded Image" is not an easy read, but would help anyone who wants to know more. A more current and more easily understood starting place would be Michael Heiser's "The Unseen Realm", which is squarely theological / Christian in nature, but still thoroughly academic. Heiser's book carries continuity with Lewis's book, but Heiser has done the work to make the material more readable for the masses by footnoting a lot of the references and for the person who really wants to dig in, he's provided supplemental material.
Tolkein may have believed this, and one could interpret his works in this way, but he is on record as loathing allegory. [1] Any allegory present in his works is therefore likely unintentional.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-...
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-...
Tolkien shared some valuable insights into allegory:
... the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it
https://writingishardwork.com/2013/06/19/tolkien-on-allegory...
...
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post/53933390053/tolkien-and...
... the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it
https://writingishardwork.com/2013/06/19/tolkien-on-allegory...
...
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post/53933390053/tolkien-and...
He may have said that, but his work is very clearly infused with a particular worldview and inspired by historical and mythological themes. I think Tolkien disliked the kind of allegory where things in the story directly correspond to something, e.g the ring war is actually WWII, the hobbits are the English, the Orcs the Nazis and so on.
But you will see very strong parallels between Tolkien and Christian mythology and pre-Christian myths. Like in Silmarillion you have blatant parallels to God and Satan. Tolkien likely did not consider this allegory. Like the sacrifice of Aslan in Lewis is not intended as an allegory for the death of Jesus but rather as a retelling of the same (universally true) myth - but come on, it is obviously an allegory for Jesus.
But you will see very strong parallels between Tolkien and Christian mythology and pre-Christian myths. Like in Silmarillion you have blatant parallels to God and Satan. Tolkien likely did not consider this allegory. Like the sacrifice of Aslan in Lewis is not intended as an allegory for the death of Jesus but rather as a retelling of the same (universally true) myth - but come on, it is obviously an allegory for Jesus.
I agree that Aslan is obviously an allegory for Jesus, but I don't think that's true in the same way for the parallels in Tolkien's stories. The key feature that distinguishes allegory from other sorts of parallels is that allegory is meant to reveal or teach something about the thing it parallels. Lewis's allegories are bald-faced Christian teaching, but Tolkien's parallels seem to just be remixes of narrative elements, without any sort of commentary intended. Gandalf obviously has a death and resurrection and goes on to save everyone, but is Tolkien saying something about Jesus with it, or is he just riffing on the Christ-figure archetype that appears in many mythologies? It seems more like the latter to me.
Exactly. That's exactly what disappointed me about Narnia: I felt like Lewis is ramming his Christianity down my throat, whereas I never felt that way with Tolkien's work. Whenever I compare Narnia and Middle Earth and people tell me "but Tolkien's work is also allegorical", my reply is "If the word allegory can be applied to both, then we need to split it up into two different words, to distinguish two things that are obviously different."
Maybe the word you are looking for is "subtle". Lewis is downright preachy a times and sometimes even goes beyond allegory and just lets Aslan be a mouthpiece for his own theology and morals. Tolkien is never preachy, so he could even become a cult hit among counterculture hippies which probably didn't share many of his values. (Probably to his own dismay I suspect)
1. CS Lewis is my all-time, favorite author.
2. I am a Christian who believes in Christ.
3. I love the Narnia series.
But I really dislike how Lewis uses allegory in his Narnian series. The Space Trilogy is much better in that respect and I highly recommend it.
But I really dislike how Lewis uses allegory in his Narnian series. The Space Trilogy is much better in that respect and I highly recommend it.
I recently went to a Tolkien expert's lecture (author of the latest biography https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tolkien-Raymond-Edwards/dp/07198098... ). He was very adamant that Tolkien didn't like allegories and instead filled his books with his moral values in a more subtle way. It is easy for us to project our own allegories on someone else's books, but anything you may see in LOTR was only made for good storytelling and not with an intention of allegory.
""The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work," he wrote, "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the Imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism" - JRR Tolkien
I think you should not always take an authors word at face value. Just because he said he didn't like allegory doesn't mean it is not present all over the work - come on, is Eru, the Ainur and Melkor not an allegory for God, the angel and the fall of Satan? Did it just happen to closely parallel the Christian mythology purely by coincidence?
Tolkien and Lewis had some bizarro theories about universals myths which meant that to them, blatant Christian allegory was not actually allegory but just a retelling of eternal truths in the form of myths. But as a reader, we don't have to accept those theories. We can enjoy their stories as stories.
I think a lot of fantasy readers dislike allegory because it kind of turns reading into work and takes the escapism out of it, so it is nice when Tolkien in person validates this aversion. But be careful - you can enjoy Tolkien without caring about the underlying worldview, but that emphatically does not mean it is not there.
(Of course to me Christian mythology is just as much fantasy as Middle Earth, but it certainly was not like that for Tolkien)
Tolkien and Lewis had some bizarro theories about universals myths which meant that to them, blatant Christian allegory was not actually allegory but just a retelling of eternal truths in the form of myths. But as a reader, we don't have to accept those theories. We can enjoy their stories as stories.
I think a lot of fantasy readers dislike allegory because it kind of turns reading into work and takes the escapism out of it, so it is nice when Tolkien in person validates this aversion. But be careful - you can enjoy Tolkien without caring about the underlying worldview, but that emphatically does not mean it is not there.
(Of course to me Christian mythology is just as much fantasy as Middle Earth, but it certainly was not like that for Tolkien)
The story of Eru and the fall of Melkior is interesting in that it blends the Christian creation myth with that of pagan religions - take for example the fact that each ainur has his own "domain". This is in fact typical of the genre of fairy stories or myth, which is what Tolkien was trying to mirror. If anything, the creation story is the one that has the most allegory and even Tolkien would find it hard to deny that. But applying the same to LOTR is harder - the people who could be allegories of Jesus couod be multitude (Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn). People like to see allegories in things and that is great, no one can tell you you are reading something wrong, and if that is how you get more meaning out of a book, then good for you.
Gandalf falling, fighting demons in the underworld for three days, dies, then resurrected and sent back as Gandalf the White - at first not recognized even by his friends. Will you seriously argue this is not an intentional parallel to the resurrection of Jesus?
Note I’m not criticizing Tolkien for this, I believe his power very much stem from the deliberate fusing of pre-Christian myths with a Christian worldview which leads it to a more straightforward engaging “good vs evil” narrative. I just find it hilarious when Tolkien fans uncritically buy the “there are no allegories” quip.
Note I’m not criticizing Tolkien for this, I believe his power very much stem from the deliberate fusing of pre-Christian myths with a Christian worldview which leads it to a more straightforward engaging “good vs evil” narrative. I just find it hilarious when Tolkien fans uncritically buy the “there are no allegories” quip.
I'm gonna be honest and say that despite reading the books god knows how many times I never even considered the parallel. Now you point it out I can't disagree that there are some similarities and it feels like you are probably right. At the same time there are differences. He's more reborn than ressurected, he has changed, his memory and status and so on have all been heavily impacted. He, like a tool, has been fixed because it is still required. There are some tonal differences which seem non trivial.
I guess my question is this. In some ways storytellers are trapped in that if you want to do good vs evil - you're going to reuse themes. Whether it's a single "abrahamic" God/Devil, or pantheons and aspects, you're going to step on some toes and parallels can be drawn. If you try and avoid that you're warping the story you want to tell for the fear of readers assuming intent etc and that strikes me as far worse than accepting that mythology is always going to have got there first.
I don't know, I've never really thought about this before or seen the allegory arguments he made.
I guess my question is this. In some ways storytellers are trapped in that if you want to do good vs evil - you're going to reuse themes. Whether it's a single "abrahamic" God/Devil, or pantheons and aspects, you're going to step on some toes and parallels can be drawn. If you try and avoid that you're warping the story you want to tell for the fear of readers assuming intent etc and that strikes me as far worse than accepting that mythology is always going to have got there first.
I don't know, I've never really thought about this before or seen the allegory arguments he made.
Simply put, Jesus is not an abstract concept, so by the definition I find at wiktionary, there can't be no allegory of the Jesus. It's not "the jesus". Abstract nouns require the definite articles, I learned in school.
So back to Tolkin. He was a linguist, so I guess he preferred to say things directly. If there are nebulous, abstract allegories to be seen, then because the concepts were intentionally not defined.
Rebirth is not an allegory for rebirth. What would the allegory be. Being chosen? Well, yeah, by the author.
So back to Tolkin. He was a linguist, so I guess he preferred to say things directly. If there are nebulous, abstract allegories to be seen, then because the concepts were intentionally not defined.
Rebirth is not an allegory for rebirth. What would the allegory be. Being chosen? Well, yeah, by the author.
By that definition, not even Animal Farm is an allegory since Stalin and Trotsky are not abstract concepts.
[deleted]
Who's Saruman's equivalent in the Bible?
Yes, there are some similarities but the entire story is markedly different. Jesus didn't die to come back as a more powerful Jesus 2.0 in order to defeat his former boss.
Gandalf's death had nothing to do with absolving the sins or saving the souls of humans. That's a fundamental aspect of Jesus' death and ressurection.
There are many more fundamental differences than there are similarities.
Yes, there are some similarities but the entire story is markedly different. Jesus didn't die to come back as a more powerful Jesus 2.0 in order to defeat his former boss.
Gandalf's death had nothing to do with absolving the sins or saving the souls of humans. That's a fundamental aspect of Jesus' death and ressurection.
There are many more fundamental differences than there are similarities.
Sure there are many - differences otherwise it wouldn't be an original work! Christian mythology is just one source of inspiration. But are you disputing there is some amount of Christian allegory in LotR?
Pretty much. There's no overarching theme to the LOTR that can be readily matched to a Christian one. Tolkein clearly borrowed a lot from various mythologies in weaving his story. Certainly Christianity was part of that. But it was inspiration and not allegory.
The point is not that there are differences. The point is that the differences are far more numerous and significant than the similarities.
The point is not that there are differences. The point is that the differences are far more numerous and significant than the similarities.
[deleted]
I’ve been (slowly) reading the Silmarillion, so I can try to answer (although I never read Lord of the Rings).
From what I can surmise the elves represent preindustrial humans. The Maiar are elemental forces (fire, water, etc). Not sure what the Valar are exactly, lesser gods of mythology I guess.
Within that landscape play out all manner of basic lessons, the importance of different crafts, the danger of vengeance, etc.
I guess “bippity boppity boo” and the patron saint of class mobility didn’t do it for Tolkien.
From what I can surmise the elves represent preindustrial humans. The Maiar are elemental forces (fire, water, etc). Not sure what the Valar are exactly, lesser gods of mythology I guess.
Within that landscape play out all manner of basic lessons, the importance of different crafts, the danger of vengeance, etc.
I guess “bippity boppity boo” and the patron saint of class mobility didn’t do it for Tolkien.
One of the central themes of Tolkien's world is 'decay': The world was perfect at the very start, then Melkor ruined it. The Third Age is merely a faint shadow of the Elder Days, the future is even fainter still, etc. Elves are understood as old beings, part of nature as it were. Abandoning middle-earth, fitting in that pattern of decay, of 'now is a shadow of the past'. Analogy with modern history is, according to Tolkien himself, "completely foreign to my thought".
Also, Valar and Maiar are greater and lesser Ainur, primordial spirits. Angels might be the closest thing, not elemental forces.
Also, Valar and Maiar are greater and lesser Ainur, primordial spirits. Angels might be the closest thing, not elemental forces.
> Analogy with modern history is, according to Tolkien himself, "completely foreign to my thought".
Which, of course, strikes everyone except Tolkien as hilarious, seeing that he wrote LotR in the 1940s.
Which, of course, strikes everyone except Tolkien as hilarious, seeing that he wrote LotR in the 1940s.
Tolkien was more influenced by World War 1 than WW2.
WWII was basically an extension of WWI. WWI was remarkable in that it was the first really mechanized war, and for the time, a really huge war unlike wars before it, which is why it was called "the Great War" before WWII happened. It was a real turning point for western society.
I think you can see a big parallel in LOTR here, with the Elves/Hobbits/etc. basically being pre-industrial peoples, while the "evil" forces were industrial societies: they felled trees, burned forests, causing widespread destruction to build their society.
I think you can see a big parallel in LOTR here, with the Elves/Hobbits/etc. basically being pre-industrial peoples, while the "evil" forces were industrial societies: they felled trees, burned forests, causing widespread destruction to build their society.
What about the idea the Noldor had, that they had seen great beauty in Valinor but they’d see even greater beauty through their suffering? They could’ve stayed and let the Ainur protect them from Melkor, but they chose to stoke a sense of honor, and fight for themselves.
I don’t think Tolkien sees this as a fundamentally deleterious development. But I haven’t seen how it ends for the Noldor so I don’t know. :)
As for Melkor, I don’t see him as fundamentally a force of decay. Destruction, yes. But Ilúvatar seems to have constructed Eä such that Melkor will always fail, that destruction will lead to differentiation and new lifeforms: not decay.
I wonder if this is an allegory for the way that life seems to defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics... not literally, the end always comes, but by creating a kind of a standing wave which seems to defy entropy, even if it is doomed to eventually decay.
I don’t think Tolkien sees this as a fundamentally deleterious development. But I haven’t seen how it ends for the Noldor so I don’t know. :)
As for Melkor, I don’t see him as fundamentally a force of decay. Destruction, yes. But Ilúvatar seems to have constructed Eä such that Melkor will always fail, that destruction will lead to differentiation and new lifeforms: not decay.
I wonder if this is an allegory for the way that life seems to defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics... not literally, the end always comes, but by creating a kind of a standing wave which seems to defy entropy, even if it is doomed to eventually decay.
I don't see the "decay" theme. You are concentrating on one thing only, overall there is just change, so yes, what was has to go and is replaced. The age of humans replaces what came before in Middle Earth.
That "decay" interpretation would just as well to our earth: The old has gone, "decayed". You misinterpret change just as in "Today's youth is the worst generation", a theme that can be traced through history.
That "decay" interpretation would just as well to our earth: The old has gone, "decayed". You misinterpret change just as in "Today's youth is the worst generation", a theme that can be traced through history.
No, I think that was pretty spot-on. This might be of interest: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Arda_Unmarred
[deleted]
I don't think Tolkein was a Marxist.
> What was the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate?
I don't know, but I can think of an analogy: If angels were commonly depicted as cheerful and a bit silly characters in cartoons, perhaps religious people would have the same complaint.
I don't know, but I can think of an analogy: If angels were commonly depicted as cheerful and a bit silly characters in cartoons, perhaps religious people would have the same complaint.
Or how geeks perceive of the way movies depict computers and the people associated with them.
By the way movies do get angels wrong, they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example. No Christians that I know are angry about that.
By the way movies do get angels wrong, they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example. No Christians that I know are angry about that.
> they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example.
No, a particular high order of angels (Seraphims) have six wings. Your run-of-the-mill, proletarian angels have two wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology?oldformat...
No, a particular high order of angels (Seraphims) have six wings. Your run-of-the-mill, proletarian angels have two wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology?oldformat...
> No Christians that I know are angry about that.
They will only be angry if they found those depictions disrespectful/mocking. Perhaps a few will like to point out the inaccuracy.
But most Western art has depicted angels with only two wings: even art by the most devout Christians.
And, iirc, it is a specific type of angel that had six wings (covered with eyes, etc...)
They will only be angry if they found those depictions disrespectful/mocking. Perhaps a few will like to point out the inaccuracy.
But most Western art has depicted angels with only two wings: even art by the most devout Christians.
And, iirc, it is a specific type of angel that had six wings (covered with eyes, etc...)
I'm going to quickly produce an animated feature film to show you. Hold my drink.
Well, tbh, if you've seen Dwarf Fortress or read Terry Prattchett, then one of the first things that comes to mind is work ethic and moral. The ethic is highly puritan and greedy, the moral is upright but loose. I'd say that's somewhat faithfully represented, except that the sense of a wider community is missing, they don't live in a mountain and of course Disney didn't do war machines jugging liters of bear and hoarding gold for the sake of it. One might argue those features were exaggerated in folk lore to begin with.
Wikipedia should have some more [1], but I can't get past the Etymology section. An ancient mythology about short spirits not withstanding, it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work, Werk, PIE wérǵ- [2]. Now if I look at the indo-arian cognates, I can't deny that those look similar to warrior, related to PIE wers-[3]. That leaves the initial d unexplained. My best guess is that's pejorative, because we- as in very, venerable etc. is too positive, but which short root the d came from I wouldn't know. I guess so far that's nothing new and where previous attempts called it quits.
By the way, guess the Zerg from Starcraft are an analogy to Zwerg, and then some. kekeke
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology)
[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur...
[3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warrior
Well, tbh, if you've seen Dwarf Fortress or read Terry Prattchett, then one of the first things that comes to mind is work ethic and moral. The ethic is highly puritan and greedy, the moral is upright but loose. I'd say that's somewhat faithfully represented, except that the sense of a wider community is missing, they don't live in a mountain and of course Disney didn't do war machines jugging liters of bear and hoarding gold for the sake of it. One might argue those features were exaggerated in folk lore to begin with.
Wikipedia should have some more [1], but I can't get past the Etymology section. An ancient mythology about short spirits not withstanding, it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work, Werk, PIE wérǵ- [2]. Now if I look at the indo-arian cognates, I can't deny that those look similar to warrior, related to PIE wers-[3]. That leaves the initial d unexplained. My best guess is that's pejorative, because we- as in very, venerable etc. is too positive, but which short root the d came from I wouldn't know. I guess so far that's nothing new and where previous attempts called it quits.
By the way, guess the Zerg from Starcraft are an analogy to Zwerg, and then some. kekeke
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology)
[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur...
[3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warrior
> it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work
No, it is not obvious. In fact, that is not a mainstream etymology at all. Nor is positing the initial dental as a “pejorative” prefix, something any recognized scholar of comparative Indo-European linguistics would do. Furthermore, your connection of ‘dwarf’ and the PIE ‘work’ root to ‘warrior’ is, frankly, crackpot.
No, it is not obvious. In fact, that is not a mainstream etymology at all. Nor is positing the initial dental as a “pejorative” prefix, something any recognized scholar of comparative Indo-European linguistics would do. Furthermore, your connection of ‘dwarf’ and the PIE ‘work’ root to ‘warrior’ is, frankly, crackpot.
I am very sorry that you feel so emotionally disturbed as to resort to insults.
> No, it is not obvious. In fact, that is not a mainstream etymology at all.
It rhymes. That is not obvious? The proposed root *werg has hardly changed at all in over 2000 years!
> Nor is positing the initial dental as a “pejorative” prefix, something any recognized scholar of comparative Indo-European linguistics would do.
Was that a compliment? I'm aware that humanities research is full of opinion. That doesn't mean I was pretending to be a recognized scholar, just because I admitted an opinion.
> Furthermore, your connection of ‘dwarf’ and the PIE ‘work’ root to ‘warrior’ is, frankly, crackpot.
I did not read this off from a cracked pot to fill in the missing bits. I attempted internal reconstruction which is admittedly highly speculative.
--
Frankly, I suppose you are, like pretty much every linguist, biased towards your mother tongue, and can't readily accept the rhyme work~dwarf ... because that doesn't rhyme, indeed. Conversely, I have to admit a bias, too.
I couldn't even explain in detail how dwarf and Zwerg could be cognate or how to derive a Germanic root from those and other cognates. So, of course I expected the need to take this with a pinch of salt. But your spoon full was a bit much.
> No, it is not obvious. In fact, that is not a mainstream etymology at all.
It rhymes. That is not obvious? The proposed root *werg has hardly changed at all in over 2000 years!
> Nor is positing the initial dental as a “pejorative” prefix, something any recognized scholar of comparative Indo-European linguistics would do.
Was that a compliment? I'm aware that humanities research is full of opinion. That doesn't mean I was pretending to be a recognized scholar, just because I admitted an opinion.
> Furthermore, your connection of ‘dwarf’ and the PIE ‘work’ root to ‘warrior’ is, frankly, crackpot.
I did not read this off from a cracked pot to fill in the missing bits. I attempted internal reconstruction which is admittedly highly speculative.
--
Frankly, I suppose you are, like pretty much every linguist, biased towards your mother tongue, and can't readily accept the rhyme work~dwarf ... because that doesn't rhyme, indeed. Conversely, I have to admit a bias, too.
I couldn't even explain in detail how dwarf and Zwerg could be cognate or how to derive a Germanic root from those and other cognates. So, of course I expected the need to take this with a pinch of salt. But your spoon full was a bit much.
> […] it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work […]
Is it? A quick glance at the Wiktionary reference and the etymology section in the Dwerg-article on the German Wikipedia doesn't yield any concrete evidence to support that statement.
'Rather obvious' seems overly optimistic — I would go with 'dubious' at best. For all we know some travelling story teller made the word up on the spot because it had the right dwarfish feel.
Is it? A quick glance at the Wiktionary reference and the etymology section in the Dwerg-article on the German Wikipedia doesn't yield any concrete evidence to support that statement.
'Rather obvious' seems overly optimistic — I would go with 'dubious' at best. For all we know some travelling story teller made the word up on the spot because it had the right dwarfish feel.
While I talk hugely about language gone by, I have actually no idea what "rather" means. Take "rather obvious" as "I can't be the only one who'd consider this for a bit".
> For all we know
No, absolutely not. Rhymes are very important to old folk lore. And to language acquisition in general. And, in a metaphoric sense, to pattern matching over all.
Of course it is possible that the word was obscured from the get go lest it would appear derived. But I don't think it's onomatopoetic, if that's what you mean (I guess you didn't, though). Thinking about that, it's likely though that the word had to be pronounced by children, requiring easier phonemes, so perhaps no th. That gives a lot of leeway to speculate about an original root. Anther thought is that "swarz" (black) should be considered, because mines are inherently dirty, and as a kind of derogative. I agree though, expecting a single root would be too easy. A rhyme compressed into one word would easily obscure the term.
A very sad thought related to small people working in mines is child labor.
> For all we know
No, absolutely not. Rhymes are very important to old folk lore. And to language acquisition in general. And, in a metaphoric sense, to pattern matching over all.
Of course it is possible that the word was obscured from the get go lest it would appear derived. But I don't think it's onomatopoetic, if that's what you mean (I guess you didn't, though). Thinking about that, it's likely though that the word had to be pronounced by children, requiring easier phonemes, so perhaps no th. That gives a lot of leeway to speculate about an original root. Anther thought is that "swarz" (black) should be considered, because mines are inherently dirty, and as a kind of derogative. I agree though, expecting a single root would be too easy. A rhyme compressed into one word would easily obscure the term.
A very sad thought related to small people working in mines is child labor.
Think about the Bible when reading the Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, it’s well worthwhile reading it again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24865379
I know the feeling. As a very young boy I saw an anime adaptation of The Little Mermaid that was a faithful adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson's version and thought it was incredibly moving.
A few years later the Disney version came out, and the production value was incredible while the story and all meaning was just lost.
And the messages Disney sends to young girls, in particular, are horrible.
A few years later the Disney version came out, and the production value was incredible while the story and all meaning was just lost.
And the messages Disney sends to young girls, in particular, are horrible.
The messages that old Disney movies send to girls were a product of their time. I think the more modern Disney movies send excellent messages to girls.
The Little Mermaid was made in 1989. Thirty years ago, yes. But far past the time when gender stereotypes began to be challenged.
Certainly better for girls than almost anything anime.
Oh man, you have got to watch some Studio Ghibli. Try Spirited Away or Howl's Moving Castle.
(edit: based on another of your comments you seem to be fully aware that there is great non-sexist non-objectifying anime out there, so your "almost any" comment is confusing. I don't know much about anime, but I've been watching some of the highest-recommended and rated films and they've all been great about this in my opinion.)
(edit: based on another of your comments you seem to be fully aware that there is great non-sexist non-objectifying anime out there, so your "almost any" comment is confusing. I don't know much about anime, but I've been watching some of the highest-recommended and rated films and they've all been great about this in my opinion.)
Spirited away is a complicated film. Most children would (fortunately) not understand the really dark and creepy hidden subtext.
The best ones are great, but most are not. Sturgeons law and all that. My favorite shows are anime.
On the topic of Ghibli, I just finished watching Ronja, the Robber's Daughter with my 8 year old daughter and it was a surprisingly great adaptation. I highly recommend it.
The OP said "almost anything anime" - almost. The majority of anime are not Studio Ghibli. We could be discussing anime (and manga) tropes for a very, very long time but there's a clear trend of a very disturbing portrayal of women (actually, "girls") in anime. "Oversexualised" only begins to scratch the surface.
While there are certainly mature, grown-up anime with characters that make sense (try Your Name for something newer than Ghibli) a great big chunk of anime are just childish.
While there are certainly mature, grown-up anime with characters that make sense (try Your Name for something newer than Ghibli) a great big chunk of anime are just childish.
Two different measures on the same set can put "almost all" their probability in different places. I guess it depends how you are discovering anime. Speaking as someone who started at zero and just started watching the most popular and highly-rated films, I encountered very little that's childish and oversexualized -- quite the opposite as compared to classic Disney. So via my discovery process, almost anything anime is great and compares well to Disney for kids. So from my limited experience, I think dismissing the genre like that with a negative stereotype is misleading.
I'm pretty sure almost is just hedging, you can say it about whatever you like really, it makes your point seem like it's saying more than it's not.
In my opinion anime tends to be less childish, and better done than american animation. The sexualization is a bit concerning, but I think that's just different cultural values.
In my opinion anime tends to be less childish, and better done than american animation. The sexualization is a bit concerning, but I think that's just different cultural values.
Whats the message in all three of them? I watch neiter disney princess movies nor animes.
It's not exactly one message - this is across hundreds of film and tv shows. But basically:
1) Old Disney - The best thing that can happen to girls is finding prince charming.
2) New Disney - Girls are just regular protagonists, sometimes purposefully going against the tropes.
3) Anime - Incredibly variety, top 5% is amazing re: girls or boys as protagonists, but a lot of it written for teenage boys and has women as side characters for sex appeal.
1) Old Disney - The best thing that can happen to girls is finding prince charming.
2) New Disney - Girls are just regular protagonists, sometimes purposefully going against the tropes.
3) Anime - Incredibly variety, top 5% is amazing re: girls or boys as protagonists, but a lot of it written for teenage boys and has women as side characters for sex appeal.
Re old disney: I suppose you are thinking about Snow White and Cinderella. Note that the prince play a very small role, everything is about the journey of the girl. If it was gender–swapped you would say princess charming was purely objectified as a prize to be obtained. And some classics like Alice in Wonderland does not fit the template at all.
I agree that old disney has a worse reputation on this stuff than it deserves.
It's not the movies, but more the TV shows, toys, endless marketing, and crap like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/16/disney-princess...
It seems to me that if a hyper-sexualized/glamorous Princess Collection will make 2% more profit for Disney then that's what's going to happen regardless of how many young girls feel inadequate about their looks and end up with eating disorders.
And yeah, sure, they'll kowtow for a while when there's a backlash, and maybe you'll get a plot like in Frozen about sisters who are supportive of each other. But that lags the culture by like 10-15 years and only happens when there's profit in bucking the damsel-in-distress princess tropes that Disney itself is mostly responsible for.
Maybe once they could be ahead of the game instead of patting themselves on the back for finally reversing long-standing trends of their own creation. Wouldn't it be nice to have a back catalog you could be proud of, rather than have to apologize for?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/16/disney-princess...
It seems to me that if a hyper-sexualized/glamorous Princess Collection will make 2% more profit for Disney then that's what's going to happen regardless of how many young girls feel inadequate about their looks and end up with eating disorders.
And yeah, sure, they'll kowtow for a while when there's a backlash, and maybe you'll get a plot like in Frozen about sisters who are supportive of each other. But that lags the culture by like 10-15 years and only happens when there's profit in bucking the damsel-in-distress princess tropes that Disney itself is mostly responsible for.
Maybe once they could be ahead of the game instead of patting themselves on the back for finally reversing long-standing trends of their own creation. Wouldn't it be nice to have a back catalog you could be proud of, rather than have to apologize for?
Do you remember what the anime adaptation was called?
What were the messages and ideas of the original Anderson The Little Mermaid?
Unrequited love will make life hell and there is nothing you can do about it. But if you are pure of heart you may at least get eternal life when you die.
The story has some pretty strong religious themes, where her love for the prince is coupled with a longing for an eternal soul (which mer-people does not have). If she can make the prince love her, she will receive an eternal soul. In the end this does not happen and she kills herself, but the angels nevertheless grant her an eternal soul due to her selfless love.
The story is incredibly sad, and I find it strange when people blame Disney for bowdlerizing it. A faithful retelling would have been unwatchable and probably incomprehensible for a modern American audience.
The story has some pretty strong religious themes, where her love for the prince is coupled with a longing for an eternal soul (which mer-people does not have). If she can make the prince love her, she will receive an eternal soul. In the end this does not happen and she kills herself, but the angels nevertheless grant her an eternal soul due to her selfless love.
The story is incredibly sad, and I find it strange when people blame Disney for bowdlerizing it. A faithful retelling would have been unwatchable and probably incomprehensible for a modern American audience.
but the angels nevertheless grant her an eternal soul due to her selfless love.
But first she has to spend 300 years in 'purgatory'. Also don't forget the closing paragraph where we learn that every time a child misbehaves the angels add 1 day to her stay in purgatory and every day the child is a 'good' child and obeys her parents a day is removed. So unless you want the Little Mermaid to never get into heaven you better be a well behaved and happy child.
But first she has to spend 300 years in 'purgatory'. Also don't forget the closing paragraph where we learn that every time a child misbehaves the angels add 1 day to her stay in purgatory and every day the child is a 'good' child and obeys her parents a day is removed. So unless you want the Little Mermaid to never get into heaven you better be a well behaved and happy child.
Also: she can't speak and everytime she takes a step, it feels like knives are cutting her feet.
>> A faithful retelling would have been unwatchable and probably incomprehensible for a modern American audience.
Is this really true? It sounds to me a bit like the reasoning that has caused Hollywood movies to very obviously try to pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e. movies as entertainment as opposed to artistic creation, explosions and car chases rather than storytelling etc).
I think of this as a self-fullfilling prophecy: if movies are advertised as crude entertainment, most people will go watch them expecting crude entertainment and will be disappointed if they get anything else. Which forces the studios to keep pushing out crude entertainment.
Apologies if I misunderstand your comment.
(note: I'm European.)
Is this really true? It sounds to me a bit like the reasoning that has caused Hollywood movies to very obviously try to pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e. movies as entertainment as opposed to artistic creation, explosions and car chases rather than storytelling etc).
I think of this as a self-fullfilling prophecy: if movies are advertised as crude entertainment, most people will go watch them expecting crude entertainment and will be disappointed if they get anything else. Which forces the studios to keep pushing out crude entertainment.
Apologies if I misunderstand your comment.
(note: I'm European.)
The best Disney movies are in my opinion sublime artistic creations surpassing most "art movies" in quality and depth of the craft and art of visual storytelling. Just look at Bambi, Pinocchio or Fantasia. They also happen to be some of the most popular movies of all time. So I reject the premise that entertainment is in opposition to artistic or that popular means "lowest common denominator". And what is wrong with car chases and explosions? Some of the best films of all times have featured car chases and explosions. Just take the car bomb and explosion at the beginning of Touch of Evil - this is recognized as one of best scenes ever.
The problem with the Little Mermaid is that she is suffering all the way through and kills herself in the end, and then the story ends with the moral that every kid who misbehaves will prolong the suffering of this mermaids soul. I don't think even Lars von Trier could make that into a successful movie.
The problem with the Little Mermaid is that she is suffering all the way through and kills herself in the end, and then the story ends with the moral that every kid who misbehaves will prolong the suffering of this mermaids soul. I don't think even Lars von Trier could make that into a successful movie.
That seems common: a foreign culture alters a pre-existing idea. Like how the Japanese developed a tradition of KFC with Xmas. Or how Chinese Food in America is nothing like authentic Chinese food.
What did you think of the Danny Kaye movie about Hans Christian Andersen?
What did you think of the Danny Kaye movie about Hans Christian Andersen?
Hans Christian Andersen himself altered and retold existing folktales and added his own slant and morals. Among other things he was heavily inspired by Arabian Nights but adapted the themes to a Scandinavian setting. Nothing new under the sun here.
I have not seen the movie.
I have not seen the movie.
The Atlas Obscura article linked at the end has some other interesting quotes, including another one from Tolkien Scholar, Trish Lambert, that “Here you have a brash, American entrepreneur who had the audacity to go in and make money off of fairy tales.”
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/tolkien-cs-lewis-disne...
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/tolkien-cs-lewis-disne...
Why should he not make money off fairy tales? By making money he built a company which has brought joy to millions of people over a near century, employed thousands and created value all without doing any real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him. It's a classic win-win.
> all without doing any real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him
I agree with the rest of that sentence, but this really isn't true. Disney's bowdlerized versions actually do harm and even displace the source material in public consciousness.
I agree with the rest of that sentence, but this really isn't true. Disney's bowdlerized versions actually do harm and even displace the source material in public consciousness.
For the non-Disney versions, try:
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Grimms-Fairy-Tales/dp/039470...
Spoiler & trigger alert - the princess discovers the true nature of the Frog Prince not with a kiss, but by flinging him against a wall. Many of the other stories are equally blunt, forceful, or realistic for the times they came from.
Of note is the modern excision of the last phrase from the closing formula: "And they all lived happily ever after until they died."
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Grimms-Fairy-Tales/dp/039470...
Spoiler & trigger alert - the princess discovers the true nature of the Frog Prince not with a kiss, but by flinging him against a wall. Many of the other stories are equally blunt, forceful, or realistic for the times they came from.
Of note is the modern excision of the last phrase from the closing formula: "And they all lived happily ever after until they died."
> Of note is the modern excision of the last phrase from the closing formula: "And they all lived happily ever after until they died."
I think this is true of English speakers. In German everyone knows the standard phrase "und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute" ("And if they have not died then they are still alive today.")
It's a sufficiently well known meme that people use it regularly in jokes.
Edit: added quote for clarity
I think this is true of English speakers. In German everyone knows the standard phrase "und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute" ("And if they have not died then they are still alive today.")
It's a sufficiently well known meme that people use it regularly in jokes.
Edit: added quote for clarity
Most of the Grimm stories don't seem to have a closing formula, as far as I can tell, though there's (at least) one that ends with "sie lebten vergnügt bis an ihr Ende". I suppose I might translate that as: "they lived happily to the end of their days".
To me the most familiar closing formula is "und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute", which is quite interesting to think about really: what does it tell or suggest to the listener?
To me the most familiar closing formula is "und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute", which is quite interesting to think about really: what does it tell or suggest to the listener?
I may have put words in the Grimms' mouths here,
either from translation or conflation with other sources.
Thank you both for the German formulas - there are examples from many languages at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_upon_a_time
Thank you both for the German formulas - there are examples from many languages at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_upon_a_time
I'm not a huge fan of Walt Disney's versions of fairy tales but in fairness stories like Cinderella were bowdlerized long before the Disney team got hold of them. Disney stories were mostly notable because they were so successful.
For example, in the Grimm Brothers version the stepsisters cut off toes and heels to fit into Cinderella's shoes and ride to visit the prince with blood dripping down on the ground. Later they were blinded. The already old version I read while growing up in the US in the late 1960s left that part out.
More interestingly, the Grimm Brothers themselves altered many of their own stories substantially in the 7 or so full editions of Grimms' Fairy Tales they published before 1857. Some of the originals were pretty crude.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales)
For example, in the Grimm Brothers version the stepsisters cut off toes and heels to fit into Cinderella's shoes and ride to visit the prince with blood dripping down on the ground. Later they were blinded. The already old version I read while growing up in the US in the late 1960s left that part out.
More interestingly, the Grimm Brothers themselves altered many of their own stories substantially in the 7 or so full editions of Grimms' Fairy Tales they published before 1857. Some of the originals were pretty crude.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales)
There is no "true version" of fairy tales. They are an oral tradition with a multitude of versions - for example Cinderella is known in dozens of different version from across the world, and in the oral tradition probably every narrator had their own version.
The Disney Cinderella is based on Charles Perrault's version which was actually published earlier than the Grimms version. Both are recorded from oral versions. Perrault does not have the cutting off of toes, but have a fairy godmother and a magic pumpkin which is not present in the Grimm version.
Disney put their own slant on the stories of course, just like any other retelling.
The Disney Cinderella is based on Charles Perrault's version which was actually published earlier than the Grimms version. Both are recorded from oral versions. Perrault does not have the cutting off of toes, but have a fairy godmother and a magic pumpkin which is not present in the Grimm version.
Disney put their own slant on the stories of course, just like any other retelling.
Indeed. The Grimm fairy tales also include "German" stories that were actually of French origin. At least some of their supposedly rustic native sources were Huguenots, i.e., French Protestants, who settled around Kassel where the Grimm brothers lived.
Personally I grew up reading (and rereading) the Andrew Lang Fairy Books. They hew to the Perrault version of Cinderella. It would not be surprising if Walt Disney read those growing up. They were immensely popular and included wonderful Art Nouveau illustrations of characters in the stories. H J Ford was the artist for many of them.
(Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lang's_Fairy_Books#/med...)
Personally I grew up reading (and rereading) the Andrew Lang Fairy Books. They hew to the Perrault version of Cinderella. It would not be surprising if Walt Disney read those growing up. They were immensely popular and included wonderful Art Nouveau illustrations of characters in the stories. H J Ford was the artist for many of them.
(Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lang's_Fairy_Books#/med...)
Those illustrations are wonderful!
To be fair though, once you undermine this clause, the rest of the comment can be applied to almost any enterprise: illegal drugs, weapons, or almost any other harmful industry.
That you compare Disney and children's stories to narcotics and "harmful industry" is laughable. Sure guns/drugs etc bring joy to some people but their harmful side effects - both to society and the individual - are much much much worse and widespread compared to Disney which really has very little to no harmful side effects.
"Bringing joy to millions" might be a bit more of a stretch for some of those.
Proponents of recreational firearms or cannabis certainly use arguments like this.
Probably more accurate as hundreds of millions.
It'd be difficult to argue that most drugs do not bring extreme joy to their users, it's just coupled with equally or even more severe lows after. If you could take heroin without getting addicted or dealing with withdrawal, why wouldn't you?
[deleted]
Disney created something people liked. The source material of original fairy tales still exists and is readily available.
That he "displaced source material in public consciousness" is hardly a critique, in that case I guess we should stop making new music and literature as popular newcomers tend to displace what's previously popular in the public consciousness.
That he "displaced source material in public consciousness" is hardly a critique, in that case I guess we should stop making new music and literature as popular newcomers tend to displace what's previously popular in the public consciousness.
Definitely. Most children born in the Netherlands at one point knew the well-known Grimm collected fairy tail of Rapunzel by its Dutch moniker ('Raponsje'), but ever since Disney released its version of that story the Dutch name got displaced by 'Rapunzel', because that's what Disney is calling her in the Dutch release as well.
Disney's bowdlerized versions actually do harm and even displace the source material in public consciousness.
You could easily level the same criticism against Grimm.
You could easily level the same criticism against Grimm.
> real damage to the fairy tales which inspired him
What about the next Walt Disney?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
What about the next Walt Disney?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
I'd say that's more an issue with current copyright law than Disney.
Current copyright law is the law in large part due to Disney’s political influence.
What does this have to do with the next Walt Disney? The next "Walt Disney" is not going to be copying Mickey Mouse they will be creating something new... Inspiration != copying.
Except that at least of the source material for Disney classics was based on public domain sources that was younger than Mickey Mouse is today. Pinocchio (the book) was released in 1883,and thus only 73 years at the time of the Disney movie (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2014/02/03/50-disne...)
It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success.
It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success.
> It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success.
In some older interviews Bill Gates describes how he would fish the source code of programs from the trash to learn how they work. I probably do not need to describe his company's attitude towards open source on HN.
In some older interviews Bill Gates describes how he would fish the source code of programs from the trash to learn how they work. I probably do not need to describe his company's attitude towards open source on HN.
It is somewhat hypocritical to lobby for removal of the same protections that enabled your own success.
I don't think "hypocritical" is the right word to use, I think it's completely reasonable for a company to want to lock out its competitors (even unborn competitors) even if it means shutting the same door that company used to achieve success. It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens, and we all know how that goes.
I don't think "hypocritical" is the right word to use, I think it's completely reasonable for a company to want to lock out its competitors (even unborn competitors) even if it means shutting the same door that company used to achieve success. It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens, and we all know how that goes.
I think a good deal of the world’s troubles can be attributed to people saying “It's up to elected lawmakers to uphold the interests of common citizens”.
Corporations solely relying on legislators is not a reasonable thing to do at all.
I think acting immorally to turn a profit for your shareholders just because something is legal is, well,... immoral.
Corporations solely relying on legislators is not a reasonable thing to do at all.
I think acting immorally to turn a profit for your shareholders just because something is legal is, well,... immoral.
this is what is wrong with the world today. Thinking that if something isn't illegal there is nothing wrong with it.
So if you managed to lobby and bribe politicians to make killing someone legal, it would be ok to kill people?
So if you managed to lobby and bribe politicians to make killing someone legal, it would be ok to kill people?
The point is that Disney by and large wasn't "creating something new" - he was reusing and re-purposing existing stories that were in the public domain, something that extending copyrights severely limits.
Dude, what is Disney known for? Retellings of old stories and fairy-tales...
Star Wars is a fairytale of our days, yet no artist can retell the story or expand the universe.
Star Wars is a fairytale of our days, yet no artist can retell the story or expand the universe.
Let us not forget the Song of the South movie:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South
What about it?
I watched Song of the South recently. And I have to say that aside from some racial stereotypes, that were not necessarily negative stereotypes, the movie seemed like an earnest effort to portray the black character (Uncle Remus) in a very positive light.
The movie did receive condemnation from the NAACP and others. But much of that was based on the erroneous assumption that the movie took place in the antebellum south and thus assumed Uncle Remus was a slave that was just cheerful and happy.
The movie does not explicitly identify the time period but the clothing and Disney themselves make it clear that it is post-civil war.
The only real controversy was that of a movie that portrayed rosy racial relations and some cliches in a time when racism was rampant and racial relations were poor.
But to me there are two schools of thought in regards to Hollywood portrayals like Song of the South. Some think you should tell only the truth and show how awful everything is so people will hopefully change. And others think you should show an idealic fiction that shows how things should be. I tend to think the latter is more effective.
I watched Song of the South recently. And I have to say that aside from some racial stereotypes, that were not necessarily negative stereotypes, the movie seemed like an earnest effort to portray the black character (Uncle Remus) in a very positive light.
The movie did receive condemnation from the NAACP and others. But much of that was based on the erroneous assumption that the movie took place in the antebellum south and thus assumed Uncle Remus was a slave that was just cheerful and happy.
The movie does not explicitly identify the time period but the clothing and Disney themselves make it clear that it is post-civil war.
The only real controversy was that of a movie that portrayed rosy racial relations and some cliches in a time when racism was rampant and racial relations were poor.
But to me there are two schools of thought in regards to Hollywood portrayals like Song of the South. Some think you should tell only the truth and show how awful everything is so people will hopefully change. And others think you should show an idealic fiction that shows how things should be. I tend to think the latter is more effective.
Be sure to watch So Dear to My Heart if you get a chance. Made two years later, it's kind of a sister film to Song of the South: similar animation + live action techniques, some of the same actors, and a bit (but not so much) of the same racial controversy.
There are certainly things to be criticized about both movies, but I think much of the criticism came from people who never saw them.
Walter Francis White's NAACP statement (quoted in the Wikipedia article linked above) is a good example. White didn't see the movie himself, but commented on it based on reports from staff members. As you mentioned, he mistakenly assumed that the film was set during the era of slavery.
The thing that sticks in my mind about Song of the South is that Uncle Remus is the hero of the movie.
To me, the real tragedy of this film - which portrayed people of different races as friends and companions - was that James Baskett, who played Uncle Remus and voiced a couple of the animated characters, couldn't attend the premiere festivities in Atlanta because it was a segregated city. But how could Disney be to blame for that?
And right now I'm regretting having given away my old laserdiscs of Song of the South and So Dear to My Heart. :-(
There are certainly things to be criticized about both movies, but I think much of the criticism came from people who never saw them.
Walter Francis White's NAACP statement (quoted in the Wikipedia article linked above) is a good example. White didn't see the movie himself, but commented on it based on reports from staff members. As you mentioned, he mistakenly assumed that the film was set during the era of slavery.
The thing that sticks in my mind about Song of the South is that Uncle Remus is the hero of the movie.
To me, the real tragedy of this film - which portrayed people of different races as friends and companions - was that James Baskett, who played Uncle Remus and voiced a couple of the animated characters, couldn't attend the premiere festivities in Atlanta because it was a segregated city. But how could Disney be to blame for that?
And right now I'm regretting having given away my old laserdiscs of Song of the South and So Dear to My Heart. :-(
> based on the erroneous assumption ...
It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of people, not to mention scholars and many others. Great numbers of people have suffered very great and real harm for generations. Perhaps we should be very concerned about what they have to say, so that that harm can stop. The response of ignoring concerns has a long history, as long as the blatant stereotypes in the movie, and have reliably achieve very poor results and great harm.
> idealic
Ideal for white people - that's always true; race relations have always been ideal (or much closer to it) for white-skinned people. Generally speaking, the predictive model of white-skinned people's view of race relations depends on whether the problems are kept out of sight: If people complain too much about racism, that gets a big backlash; white people become angry. The legal system's abuses, the poverty, the unfunded schools, the lack of services, and African-American people themselves are hidden in separate neighborhoods. As long as it's not bothering white-skinned people, then race relations are good!
Films like Song of the South fulfill many white-skinned people's ideal of African-Americans and of race relations. African-Americans have a long history of being defined by white-skinned people rather than by themselves (as do many excluded groups); almost every one you see is filtered through white screenwriters, journalists, researchers, political commentators, politicians, Hacker News commenters[0], etc. Notice the high proportion of African-Americans in fictional media who are criminals, who are poor, and who speak with a heavy urban slang. Believe it or not, those things are not true of the vast majority of African-Americans; most are ordinary people with ordinary jobs and lives, and speak standard English. Having lived in African-American neighborhoods, watching the portrayal on TV and films can be bizarre - it's an alternate reality written by people who have little experience and just toss in stereotypes.
Characters like Remus are objects, not people with their own priorities but things that exist to make white people happy and comfortable, both the fictional characters in the films and (especially, of course) the real people who buy tickets. Finally, in that film the long-repeated stereotypes are particularly obvious and overwhelming (IIRC, and many others agree). If the parent doesn't recognize them, I encourage them to learn about the issue.
[0] HN's lack of African-American voices is a serious impediment to discussion. It's very rare that any commenters can speak from that point of view. Note that African-Americans are almost always discussed int he third person - 'they' and 'them'.
It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of people, not to mention scholars and many others. Great numbers of people have suffered very great and real harm for generations. Perhaps we should be very concerned about what they have to say, so that that harm can stop. The response of ignoring concerns has a long history, as long as the blatant stereotypes in the movie, and have reliably achieve very poor results and great harm.
> idealic
Ideal for white people - that's always true; race relations have always been ideal (or much closer to it) for white-skinned people. Generally speaking, the predictive model of white-skinned people's view of race relations depends on whether the problems are kept out of sight: If people complain too much about racism, that gets a big backlash; white people become angry. The legal system's abuses, the poverty, the unfunded schools, the lack of services, and African-American people themselves are hidden in separate neighborhoods. As long as it's not bothering white-skinned people, then race relations are good!
Films like Song of the South fulfill many white-skinned people's ideal of African-Americans and of race relations. African-Americans have a long history of being defined by white-skinned people rather than by themselves (as do many excluded groups); almost every one you see is filtered through white screenwriters, journalists, researchers, political commentators, politicians, Hacker News commenters[0], etc. Notice the high proportion of African-Americans in fictional media who are criminals, who are poor, and who speak with a heavy urban slang. Believe it or not, those things are not true of the vast majority of African-Americans; most are ordinary people with ordinary jobs and lives, and speak standard English. Having lived in African-American neighborhoods, watching the portrayal on TV and films can be bizarre - it's an alternate reality written by people who have little experience and just toss in stereotypes.
Characters like Remus are objects, not people with their own priorities but things that exist to make white people happy and comfortable, both the fictional characters in the films and (especially, of course) the real people who buy tickets. Finally, in that film the long-repeated stereotypes are particularly obvious and overwhelming (IIRC, and many others agree). If the parent doesn't recognize them, I encourage them to learn about the issue.
[0] HN's lack of African-American voices is a serious impediment to discussion. It's very rare that any commenters can speak from that point of view. Note that African-Americans are almost always discussed int he third person - 'they' and 'them'.
>It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long...
I was referring to the official dissent of the NAACP, which I clearly specified. The official NAACP remarks are as follows:
"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recognizes in "Song of the South" remarkable artistic merit in the music and in the combination of living actors and the cartoon technique. It regrets, however, that in an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, "Song of the South" unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts."
As you can see, the entire argument rests on the, as I stated, erroneous assumption that the movie is depicting slavery.
I did not say there were no valid criticisms as there obviously were and are. But that specific and most famous criticism is not.
I don't really have a comment on the rest of your history lesson on racism except that I agree and that this movie does not seem to apply. But good work with the virtue signaling.
I'll have a sit down with my African American wife (with whom I watched Song of the South) and explain to her why she should have been more offended.
I was referring to the official dissent of the NAACP, which I clearly specified. The official NAACP remarks are as follows:
"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recognizes in "Song of the South" remarkable artistic merit in the music and in the combination of living actors and the cartoon technique. It regrets, however, that in an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, "Song of the South" unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts."
As you can see, the entire argument rests on the, as I stated, erroneous assumption that the movie is depicting slavery.
I did not say there were no valid criticisms as there obviously were and are. But that specific and most famous criticism is not.
I don't really have a comment on the rest of your history lesson on racism except that I agree and that this movie does not seem to apply. But good work with the virtue signaling.
I'll have a sit down with my African American wife (with whom I watched Song of the South) and explain to her why she should have been more offended.
Personal attacks and the inverse, claiming some personal superiority (bringing in the skin color one's spouse! yikes!), have no place here. The GP clearly approved of the film and its depiction of race beyond any NAACP statement.
Well I think it is more complex...certainly, I can understand how it is problematic to show Jim Crow era blacks as happy and content. But on the other hand the movie disneyfies African-American folktales like they have done to european folktales, and this is actually a recognization of a distinct African-American culture which is pretty unique. But of course in a form which have been filtered through the primary white Disney studio. The question is if this is better or worse than nothing given the time when the movie was produced.
> It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of people, not to mention scholars and many others.
Well the fact of the matter is that SotS have been erroneously criticized for depicting a "happy slave" which is simply not correct. The amount of real suffering does not really change this fact. There are legitimate criticisms, but this is not one of them.
> It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of people, not to mention scholars and many others.
Well the fact of the matter is that SotS have been erroneously criticized for depicting a "happy slave" which is simply not correct. The amount of real suffering does not really change this fact. There are legitimate criticisms, but this is not one of them.
The movie depicts a racist white stereotype of African-American people. The rest is just details.
> the movie disneyfies African-American folktales like they have done to european folktales
An absurd comparison. The U.S. is not filled with Europeans suffering widespread, systematic and brutal discrimination - including, at the time, segregation and lynchings - based on racial stereotypes and prejudice.
> the movie disneyfies African-American folktales like they have done to european folktales
An absurd comparison. The U.S. is not filled with Europeans suffering widespread, systematic and brutal discrimination - including, at the time, segregation and lynchings - based on racial stereotypes and prejudice.
Note that JRRT's argument isn't based on dislike of profit motive, though he did think it could be taken to extremes. In any case, he could hardly argue that way convincingly since his estate has made quite a lot of money from his fairy tales.
> Why should he not make money off fairy tales?
Obviously he should have. Disney's work is at least as objectively important to an understanding of modern western society as Tolkien's or Lewis's is.
Still, if your life's love labor was to have crafted a history and arc detailing in great precision the tales of the seven houses of the children of Aulë, "Hi Ho!" might have been a bit much to take.
Obviously he should have. Disney's work is at least as objectively important to an understanding of modern western society as Tolkien's or Lewis's is.
Still, if your life's love labor was to have crafted a history and arc detailing in great precision the tales of the seven houses of the children of Aulë, "Hi Ho!" might have been a bit much to take.
That popularity of bastardised versions can be said to do harm to the original tales.
Also the whole thing about copyright, the famous "eternity + 1 day", so there's that.
Also the whole thing about copyright, the famous "eternity + 1 day", so there's that.
eternity + 1 day
That wasn't Disney, it was Jack Valenti, and it was less one day, as to "comply" with the restriction in the Constitution that the term must be limited.
That wasn't Disney, it was Jack Valenti, and it was less one day, as to "comply" with the restriction in the Constitution that the term must be limited.
For the same reason that we now understand Santa Claus as the shitty Coca Cola character invented as an early 20th century ad. The original is lost to all except historical scholars and all we're left with is the pastiche dripping in sickly sweetness.
About as far from "without doing any real damage" as it's possible to get.
About as far from "without doing any real damage" as it's possible to get.
> For the same reason that we now understand Santa Claus as the shitty Coca Cola character invented as an early 20th century ad.
Those Coca-Cola ads really didn't change the popular idea of Santa Claus. Here's a good explanation: “Did Coca-Cola Invent the Modern Image of Santa Claus?”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-claus-that-refreshes/
Those Coca-Cola ads really didn't change the popular idea of Santa Claus. Here's a good explanation: “Did Coca-Cola Invent the Modern Image of Santa Claus?”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-claus-that-refreshes/
But folk tales have always evolved. That's what happens to mainly oral traditions like that - the originals are constantly being lost and the new thing becomes the new original over time. Is your idea of the original Santa Claus really the original or someone else's spin on it from something else even older?
Coca Cola's interpretation of the tradition is as valid as anyone else's.
Coca Cola's interpretation of the tradition is as valid as anyone else's.
Saint Nicholas is still alive and well in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Saint Nicholas is not Santa Claus, at least in Orthodox parts of Europe. St. Nick day is in November and celebrated apart from Christmas.
> Saint Nicholas is not Santa Claus
You are wrong. It's very same character that just got a distorted spelling over time. And one became a pagan version thru the process, but they are very much the same character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus
> Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, or simply Santa, is a legendary figure originating in Western Christian culture who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved ("good" or "nice") children on Christmas Eve (24 December) and the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December).[1] The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas (a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of Myra), the British figure of Father Christmas and the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas (himself also based on Saint Nicholas). Some maintain Santa Claus also absorbed elements of the Germanic god Wodan, who was associated with the pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky.
Now, the fact that people know think it's two different characters is beyond the point: they just don't realize where it is coming from.
You are wrong. It's very same character that just got a distorted spelling over time. And one became a pagan version thru the process, but they are very much the same character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus
> Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, or simply Santa, is a legendary figure originating in Western Christian culture who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved ("good" or "nice") children on Christmas Eve (24 December) and the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December).[1] The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas (a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of Myra), the British figure of Father Christmas and the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas (himself also based on Saint Nicholas). Some maintain Santa Claus also absorbed elements of the Germanic god Wodan, who was associated with the pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky.
Now, the fact that people know think it's two different characters is beyond the point: they just don't realize where it is coming from.
[deleted]
And yet, when the well-bred Englishman sells his books about dwarves and dragons to a publisher, it's totally different.
Isn't that always the way?
Isn't that always the way?
Tolkien wrote stories, Disney did not. At least that's how I interpret it.
Disney as a company was also completely built upon old stories in the public domain, but as soon as they became successful they started tightening the screws on intellectual property laws to make sure that others couldn't do the same.
And yet, weirdly enough, you can find a slew of second- and third-rate animated movies about the very same fairy tales Disney based their movies on...
Not only Disney did not, they butchered stories that existed.
[deleted]
In a post Game of Thrones world, I think we're due for some (re)brutalised versions of these fairly tales.
In contrast, I (and perhaps some others?) find the world of gritty "down-to-earth" genre-subversions that GoT encouraged somewhat overplayed and tiresome at this point. Give me earnest stories, high fantasy, heroic and noble!
(I fear the upcoming Amazon Middle-Earth series will be a GoT-style abomination that tries to fit Tolkien into something it simply isn't.)
(I fear the upcoming Amazon Middle-Earth series will be a GoT-style abomination that tries to fit Tolkien into something it simply isn't.)
I think that this really sums up Tolkien's attitude best:
Tolkien did not think fairy tales were children's stories, and Disney treated them as if they were.
Tolkien did not think fairy tales were children's stories, and Disney treated them as if they were.
I have been trying to put my finger on the source of Tolkien's complaints, and I think I agree with you here. Tolkien has a section about this in the essay linked from the article.
http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien...
http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien...
Too bad The Lord of the Rings movie got a Disney make over with the happy ending where the Shire was never destroyed. This is so Non-Tolkienish that he must have turned in his grave.
To be fair the Shire was on the brink of destruction in the books, but in the end got saved and restored to its old glory (with some additional elven magic to boot).
If you wanted to, you could read it as a fantasy of a pre-industrialized country getting threatened by industrialization but rejecting it and continuing in their old ways (allegory, ha!).
So personally, I'd say the Shire plot has a happy ending in the book. I'd see Frodo's fate and the general decline of the world as a bittersweet ending, but those elements have been kept in the movies relatively unchanged.
If you wanted to, you could read it as a fantasy of a pre-industrialized country getting threatened by industrialization but rejecting it and continuing in their old ways (allegory, ha!).
So personally, I'd say the Shire plot has a happy ending in the book. I'd see Frodo's fate and the general decline of the world as a bittersweet ending, but those elements have been kept in the movies relatively unchanged.
Well the Shire is saved in the end, isn't it? I think it is more that is a smaller scale conflict playing out after the resolution of the larger conflict which simply does not work very well on film. Maybe in a tv series, it would work. Even then the movie is weighed down by several drawn-out "endings" after the resolution of the main conflict, which was one of the major criticisms. I do think the movie captures the bitter-sweetnes of the end of the book with the elves leaving middle-earth and so on.
I don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies, but then again, he is dead.
I don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies, but then again, he is dead.
> I don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies, but then again, he is dead.
Then they should clearly say this is not based on the books right from the start. The first movie was still somewhat acceptable as a book adaption, but the second and third go so far away from the actual characters and events it should be called something else.
Then they should clearly say this is not based on the books right from the start. The first movie was still somewhat acceptable as a book adaption, but the second and third go so far away from the actual characters and events it should be called something else.
It would be ridiculous to claim the movies were not based on the books. Of course they had to change a lot of things, the books were not written as movie scripts. The primary responsibility of a movie director is to make a great movie.
> Of course they had to change a lot of things, the books were not written as movie scripts. The primary responsibility of a movie director is to make a great movie.
It's OK to make cuts from a great book in order to fit the essentials. It's NOT OK to completely change the story, like making characters go to Osgiliath for no good reason, making Gimli a constant buffoon and transfiguring every motivation from protagonists, motivations well thought about as Tolkien revised its script during 14 years of writing.
And the second and third movies of the trilogy were not even great movies if you forget about the books. Dialogs half taken from the book and half-written like modern American English, general lack of consistency, and a x-parts ending that did not make at all cinematic sense and was all fan service for book lovers. Except that the Scourging of the Shire was missing. What a mess, really.
It's OK to make cuts from a great book in order to fit the essentials. It's NOT OK to completely change the story, like making characters go to Osgiliath for no good reason, making Gimli a constant buffoon and transfiguring every motivation from protagonists, motivations well thought about as Tolkien revised its script during 14 years of writing.
And the second and third movies of the trilogy were not even great movies if you forget about the books. Dialogs half taken from the book and half-written like modern American English, general lack of consistency, and a x-parts ending that did not make at all cinematic sense and was all fan service for book lovers. Except that the Scourging of the Shire was missing. What a mess, really.
It seems you just don't like the movies. That is OK!
It's hard to know of course, but I'm guessing Tolkien would be turning in his grave about all the Peter Jackson movies.
Personally, I can't get over the fact they cut out Tom Bombadil. This was discussed before on HN and someone said Jackson had a good reason to do that, but it just rips the heart out of the whole thing. It's exactly what Tolkien was complaining about: here is a good old fairy story that has been "adapted" for the large screen by taking out everything that makes it a fairy story- the whimsical, otherworldly magic of the fair folk. What we're left with is epic battles, action ballet (I'm thinking of that scene where Legolas kills the oliphant) and just generally fantasy porn. Great sets and costumes, but there's nobody in there.
Personally, I can't get over the fact they cut out Tom Bombadil. This was discussed before on HN and someone said Jackson had a good reason to do that, but it just rips the heart out of the whole thing. It's exactly what Tolkien was complaining about: here is a good old fairy story that has been "adapted" for the large screen by taking out everything that makes it a fairy story- the whimsical, otherworldly magic of the fair folk. What we're left with is epic battles, action ballet (I'm thinking of that scene where Legolas kills the oliphant) and just generally fantasy porn. Great sets and costumes, but there's nobody in there.
Fellowship of the Ring is the closest to Tolkien's vision for sure, with some notable exceptions. I think he would have enjoyed seeing rivendell designed.
Yes, Fellowship of the Ring is the best. They were probably too afraid to stray away from the book, and because of its huge success they felt comfortable rewriting the whole story consequently. What I liked about FOTR is that even the stuff they added were pretty much consistent with the thinking behind the book - they grasped it.
I can't fathom what went so wrong afterwards.
I can't fathom what went so wrong afterwards.
This makes a lot of sense, when you think about the difference in their storytelling aesthetics. High fantasy =/= kids' cartoons.
No it doesn’t make any sense that you’d loathe someone because they have a different artistic style to yourself!
You can loathe another artist style though.
Tolkien and Lewis should have taken a chill pill.
I enjoy Tolkien over Disney any day because I don't even view them in the same league.
Disney took ancient mythology and did with it what could be compared to the simplified version of Hawkings book "A Briefer History of Time".
In the case of dwarves I feel that it doesn't change anything if you bastardize something that is already based on mythology.
If anything this to me new revelation about Tolkien is a negative rather than a positive. Not that I care enough to make it that but I just don't think they should have had such strong opinions on Disney's work when they were themselves fully capable of creating amazing works of fiction.
This truly does seem like Oxford dons thumbing their noses at an American.
I enjoy Tolkien over Disney any day because I don't even view them in the same league.
Disney took ancient mythology and did with it what could be compared to the simplified version of Hawkings book "A Briefer History of Time".
In the case of dwarves I feel that it doesn't change anything if you bastardize something that is already based on mythology.
If anything this to me new revelation about Tolkien is a negative rather than a positive. Not that I care enough to make it that but I just don't think they should have had such strong opinions on Disney's work when they were themselves fully capable of creating amazing works of fiction.
This truly does seem like Oxford dons thumbing their noses at an American.
Title makes it sound like he didn't like the person, article says he loathed the media he produced, a pretty big difference.
> But he also called Disney a “poor boob” and lamented “What might not have come of it if this man had been educated—or even brought up in a decent society?”
The article’s writing isn’t clear but I think CS Lewis wrote that.
Either way, that’s not the same as loathing. It’s more dismissive and pitying. Loathing suggests at least a strong dislike of the person.
Either way, that’s not the same as loathing. It’s more dismissive and pitying. Loathing suggests at least a strong dislike of the person.
The headline conflates 'Disney studios' with Walt Disney, which Tolkien himself might be accused of also doing. The quote from Tolkien's letter is “by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing).”
What Tolkien was really inspired by was Norse, Gaelic and Germanic mythos. Not to forget Middle and Old English Poems.
Norse:
- The Poetic Edda
- Prose Edda
- Beowulf
- Volsung Saga
Middle English:
- Pearle, (The concept of The Ring being "My Precious")
Welsh:
- Culhwch and Olwen, inspired Beren and Luthien (Silmarillion)
- Red Book of Herghest (Welsh Vellum) directly inspired Red Book of Westmarch
Finnish:
- Kalevala (Story of Kullervo) inspired Children of Hurin (Silmarillion)
German:
- Nibelungen and later work Der Ring Des Nibelung, inspired The One Ring and the myth of Broken Sword reforged.
Norse:
- The names of Gandalf and the 12 dwarves are directly taken from Prose and Poetic Edda
- High Elves / Gray Elves are inspired by Norse Calaquendi / Moriquendi
- Balrog and the Bridge of Khazad-Dum are direct allegory to norse fire giant Surtur and the Birfrost (recently depicted in Thor: Ragnarok)
Celtic:
- The Elves of Middle Earth (exiles) are based on Celtic fae gods, the Tuatha-de-Danan
References:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien%27s_influence...
Norse:
- The Poetic Edda
- Prose Edda
- Beowulf
- Volsung Saga
Middle English:
- Pearle, (The concept of The Ring being "My Precious")
Welsh:
- Culhwch and Olwen, inspired Beren and Luthien (Silmarillion)
- Red Book of Herghest (Welsh Vellum) directly inspired Red Book of Westmarch
Finnish:
- Kalevala (Story of Kullervo) inspired Children of Hurin (Silmarillion)
German:
- Nibelungen and later work Der Ring Des Nibelung, inspired The One Ring and the myth of Broken Sword reforged.
Norse:
- The names of Gandalf and the 12 dwarves are directly taken from Prose and Poetic Edda
- High Elves / Gray Elves are inspired by Norse Calaquendi / Moriquendi
- Balrog and the Bridge of Khazad-Dum are direct allegory to norse fire giant Surtur and the Birfrost (recently depicted in Thor: Ragnarok)
Celtic:
- The Elves of Middle Earth (exiles) are based on Celtic fae gods, the Tuatha-de-Danan
References:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien%27s_influence...
I like both, in different ways.
You possess an important key to happiness, then. The ability to appreciate both a perfectly prepared scallop risotto and a 7-11 steak taquito.
> a perfectly prepared scallop risotto and a 7-11 steak taquito
+100 I've said this before, but I've not heard anyone else say it. That is an important life-skill.
+100 I've said this before, but I've not heard anyone else say it. That is an important life-skill.
I have seen so many people made miserable by an inability to do this. Especially once they earn a bit of money, and experience the 'good life'.
I really love fine craft beer. But can still sit down happily in a cheap pub and drink a jug of Victoria Bitter. It helps greatly to have entirely distinct mental categories in such cases.
I really love fine craft beer. But can still sit down happily in a cheap pub and drink a jug of Victoria Bitter. It helps greatly to have entirely distinct mental categories in such cases.
People seem to forget that if something isn't great, that doesn't mean it's bad.
VB, Carlton, Budweiser, or any other mass market lager isn't bad beer. It's not good beer, there's nothing remarkable about the stuff, but it's not like it's vinegar or has massive technical flaws. The quality control and consistency of mass market lagers is something that many craft breweries and brewpubs could only dream of.
There's plenty of craft beer that I've drunk that's distinctly different from batch to batch, their consistency is all over the show. But I know that if I get a stubby of VB, it's going to taste exactly like VB.
VB, Carlton, Budweiser, or any other mass market lager isn't bad beer. It's not good beer, there's nothing remarkable about the stuff, but it's not like it's vinegar or has massive technical flaws. The quality control and consistency of mass market lagers is something that many craft breweries and brewpubs could only dream of.
There's plenty of craft beer that I've drunk that's distinctly different from batch to batch, their consistency is all over the show. But I know that if I get a stubby of VB, it's going to taste exactly like VB.
+1 for bringing aus beer culture into this. I lived in China for 3 months and once I came back, VB tasted as good as any craft beer - a luxury. My friends thought I was crazy, but it taught me just how relative our experiences can be.
I think living in a totally foreign culture is essential to recognizing the actual values (and fundamental issues) of your own society. It also gives you perspective on what‘s human, what‘s culture and how to relate with any other human regardless of th latter. Was quite the eye opener for me. I hope more people can and want to do it in the future.
How do they earn money? Working long hours? Do they dislike their bosses and co-workers and compensate with high-end purchases?
To compare Disney animation to a gas station taquito is borderline offensive!
These people were true artists and pioneers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYEmL0d0lZE
These people were true artists and pioneers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYEmL0d0lZE
It seems that Tolkien may have liked the animation ("I recognize [Disney's] talent, but it has always seemed to me hopelessly corrupted."), just not the treatment of fairy tales in the story.
It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate Disney & Co's contribution to animation and visual story-telling without respecting the underlying stories.
It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate Disney & Co's contribution to animation and visual story-telling without respecting the underlying stories.
I highly recommend the three-part John Batchelor interview[0] of the Zaleskis on their book about the Inklings (including Tolkien and Lewis):
[0] https://audioboom.com/posts/4420047-the-fellowship-the-liter...
[0] https://audioboom.com/posts/4420047-the-fellowship-the-liter...
On the one hand I see where they are coming from. On the other I sure do enjoy the genius of production of those old animations, particularly Fantasia. On the one hand I understand the criticism that Spielberg torpedoed indie cinema, on the other hand Empire of the Sun was a masterpiece. Two things can exist, in their own right, meriting praise, yet opposed and unresolved.
Tolkein may also have talked with trees, so a bit of a quirky fellow, for which we can all be grateful.
There was a fascinating podcast on RadioLab about the intelligence of trees and one of our writers wrote about it (this is a Christian publication about weird stuff): https://gospel.vision/discovering-the-mystical-intelligence-...
I've started talking to trees since discovering this.
I've started talking to trees since discovering this.
I hope I can one day work up the courage to talk with trees. I am talking to birds to work up to it ;)
[deleted]
[deleted]
zeofig(1)
"...he also called Disney a 'poor boob'"
[chef's kiss]
[chef's kiss]