The Children of Hurin - The Film

[tumhalad2]

Before you castigate me for putting a topic with the above title in the book section, please hear me out.

On the release of the Children of Hurin in 2007, almost all reviews were positive - but many also contained an element of surprise and sometimes, even astonishment. See Andrew O'Hehir's review at salon.com for a quintissential example:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/17/hurin

The Turin story caught many reviewers off guard. The themes, style, the characters and the setting of the new book were new and different, Fresh. To paraphrase many a reviewer, not really like the Tolkien we'd all come to know and love. Of course, those of us familiar with Unfinished Tales knew what to expect, but the sheer power of the standalone work, encased as it was in a beautifully designed dust jacket, and bejeweled with the atmospheric illustrations of Alan Lee, seemed to surprise and amaze many who confessed they had not been drawn to Tolkien's more famous "kiddie" or "escapist" works. See, for example, Bryan Appleyard's review in the Sunday Times:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle1613657.ece

For quite some time now, I've been intrigued by the reception of CoH in the media and by lay readers unfamiliar with Tolkien. Here on these boards, of course, I recently reanimated the discussion about CoH and its place in Tolkien's philosophy, "Turin the Hopeless":

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13878

That thread began with a quote from John Garth's review in the Telegraph, which contrasts the providential feel The Lord of the Rings, exemplified in Gandalf's musings to Frodo ("you were meant to have it") with the atheistic uncertainty of The Children of Hurin, exemplified in Sador Labadel, one of Tolkien's most interesting characters. The debate eventually seemed to fizzle out (please feel free to reanimate it again!) and I feel there is much yet to discuss, and many implications that have yet to be unpacked. Indeed, I'm even considering doing some further research and writing a book about all this one day, focusing on CoH itself, its reception, its meaning in light of the "legendarium" etc. But for now, in this thread, I'd like to discuss something a bit tangential to that theme.

In light of the reception to CoH in the media, I've always thought that a film version of the book would be interesting. Even though the book was popular, books never have as wide a market appeal as films do. At the moment the public's conception of Tolkien is still dominated by memes that relate primarily to TLoTR - "hobbits", "elves", "orcs", but also "magic rings", "dark lords", "good and evil", and even generic themes like "heroism", "courage" etc. No matter which way you look at it, many of the dominant memes that have migrated from the writing of the author JRR Tolkien, nvolve themes, characters, settings and ideas that spring from his most well known work. Nothing surprising there, but that's not the point.

What if a movie of CoH were made? As we have seen, the impact of the book on those who read it was in many cases profound, or at least the experience led them to reevaluate their image and conception of Tolkien himself. That is powerful. A film version could reach a much larger audience. How do you think an audience would receive a film version? With some degree of cognitive dissonance, as seems to have been the case with many readers of the book? Would it allow for a more general reappraisal of Tolkien's works as a whole? Personally, I think it would, and furthermore, I think that would be a good thing.

In the thread "Turin the Hopeless", others pointed out that Tolkien will still be viewed through the lens of The Lord of the Rings
, and that people will assume Tolkien's worldview can largely be extrapolated from that work alone. He hates industrialisation, thinks the world is suffused with a providential purpose, etc. But what if audiences were exposed to one of Tolkien's tales on the big screen that largely opposes many of these themes, and contradicts them?

As it stands, CoH doesn't yet seem to have made much of a critical dent, but in those places where it has been explored, it has provoked some interesting and potentially paradigm shifting discussion. It begs questions about Tolkien's religiosity, and the degree to which he reasoned with it, questions about his wider motives and goals, about his aspirations and hopes, but most importantly, questions about the "type" of world Middle-earth really is, in a "metaphysical" sense. The answers to these questions have implications for our appreciation of Tolkien's other, more familiar works, and I get the feeling that CoH challenged many a reviewer's received wisdom about Tolkien's treatment of morality, etc.

So, alot to take in, but think of this as a follow up post to the "Turing the Hopeless" thread

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad

It begs questions about Tolkien's religiosity, and the degree to which he reasoned with it, questions about his wider motives and goals, about his aspirations and hopes, but most importantly, questions about the "type" of world Middle-earth really is, in a "metaphysical" sense.

tumhalad, I've already said all I intend to say about CoH and your notions on the interpretation thereof on the "Turin the Hopeless" thread, so I will not repeat myself here. But I'd like a clarification: in what way do you mean the book "begs questions" about its author? Is that even possible? A review or analysis might do this, but surely not the book itself.

Or do you mean it raises questions? Not the same thing.

As for your main topic–I rather think this belongs in the "Movies" forum (where in fact the question has been raised more than once, as I recall).

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

tumhalad, I've already said all I intend to say about CoH and your notions on the interpretation thereof on the "Turin the Hopeless" thread, so I will not repeat myself here. But I'd like a clarification: in what way do you mean the book "begs questions" about its author? Is that even possible? A review or analysis might do this, but surely not the book itself.

Or do you mean it raises questions? Not the same thing.

To my mind, "begs" and "raises" really means the same thing. I don't appreciate the difference. When I write that the book "begs" the question, I mean that when I first read it, I began to engage with it and ask questions of it, and by extension its author. I hope that clears that up. Reviews and analyses are presumably written by people who have read the book, so they ask questions during and after the process of reading. This seems to me like a completely natural and straightforward process.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

To my mind, "begs" and "raises" really means the same thing. I don't appreciate the difference.

Well, you should, especially given your literary aspirations, because the phrase "to beg the question" actually refers to a type of logical fallacy (cf. the link I gave).

[tumhalad2]

There is such a thing as colloquial language - and "beg the question" in colloquial register has much the same meaning as "raise the question". At least it does where I'm from, and that's the meaning in which I meant it. All this should be evident from the context of my post. None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, so let's move on.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

There is such a thing as colloquial language - and "beg the question" in colloquial register has much the same meaning as "raise the question". At least it does where I'm from, and that's the meaning in which I meant it. All this should be evident from the context of my post. None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, so let's move on.

But I thought this was a very serious literary topic, regarding which discussions are reanimated, paradigms are shifted and implications are unpacked? Surely such slang (mis)usage is out of place? (Besides, the proper concept of "begging the question" is such a useful one...)

[tumhalad2]

Oh dear, do I need to wash my mouth out? You're obviously not a linguist if you believe that linguistic items have proper usages. How prescriptivist of you. But I agree it's a useful concept.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Oh dear, do I need to wash my mouth out? You're obviously not a linguist if you believe that linguistic items have proper usages.

Thank goodness, no. But come, admit it, my friend: you really didn't have any idea there was a distinction at all until I pointed it out, did you? You really ought to thank me– there's much more embarrassing ways you could have found out, you know.

[tumhalad2]

Oh, okay I really had no idea that such a logical fallacy was called by the name "begging the question". *Prostrates himself in front of Nerwen*

To be honest though, at least where I'm from, it's used in rather polite discourse to mean something essentially *raises* the question. Go figure...

[Nerwen]

*graciously accepts your surrender*

Well, now that we've settled that–

How theoretical are you being here? It doesn't seem likely that anyone will be making a film version of CoH in the next few decades (and goodness knows what cinema will have mutated into by the time it finally goes out of copyright).

[tumhalad2]

Well, I'm being completely theoretical. This is not about whether they will make a film or not, it's about the effects such a project might have upon Tolkien's image as a popular author.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Well, I'm being completely theoretical. This is not about whether they will make a film or not, it's about the effects such a project might have upon Tolkien's image as a popular author.

That would depend, in part, on the film– my guess is that any such adaptation would end up being completely butchered.

But even if it wasn't, how many people judge an author solely by the film versions of his or her novels? It would be rather silly of them, don't you think?

Of course, a successful film version will encourage people to read the original novel– but that's a two-step process, which isn't what you've described.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, you should, especially given your literally aspirations

But, Nerwen, surely you meant "literary"?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

But, Nerwen, surely you meant "literary"?

Dear me! I surely did! I could have sworn that's what I typed. Curse this late-night posting!

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That would depend, in part, on the film– my guess is that any such adaptation would end up being completely butchered.

But even if it wasn't, how many people judge an author solely by the film versions of his or her novels? It would be rather silly of them, don't you think?

Of course, a successful film version will encourage people to read the original novel– but that's a two-step process, which isn't what you've described.

Going back to my original post, I'm interested in how a film version might change the kinds of "memes" that 'pop up' in people's heads when the hear the word "Tolkien". Put it another way; how might a film version of CoH inculcate itself into popular culture, and what effect would this have on ideas that are held about Tolkien atm? Would our perception of him change radically? This of course assumes CoH is a very different story to LoTR in many respects, which I contend it is, particularly in its stand alone form.

As I explained, film has the power to reach a far greater audience than a book does. When the novel was released, many reviewers were surprised or astonished at the contents, which were unfamiliar "memes" that one usually wouldn't associate with Tolkien, at least not in popular culture. An academic study of Tolkien can of course be far more perceptive, and we may tease out layers of convergance or similarity, but I still contend that there is a fundemental metaphysical difference between the universes depicted in LoTR and CoH. One is fully providential, the other is atheistic (this is in no way meant to be a pejorative term).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Going back to my original post, I'm interested in how a film version might change the kinds of "memes" that 'pop up' in people's heads when the hear the word "Tolkien". Put it another way; how might a film version of CoH inculcate itself into popular culture, and what effect would this have on ideas that are held about Tolkien atm? Would our perception of him change radically? This of course assumes CoH is a very different story to LoTR in many respects, which I contend it is, particularly in its stand alone form.

As I explained, film has the power to reach a far greater audience than a book does. When the novel was released, many reviewers were surprised or astonished at the contents, which were unfamiliar "memes" that one usually wouldn't associate with Tolkien, at least not in popular culture. An academic study of Tolkien can of course be far more perceptive, and we may tease out layers of convergance or similarity, but I still contend that there is a fundemental metaphysical difference between the universes depicted in LoTR and CoH. One is fully providential, the other is atheistic (this is in no way meant to be a pejorative term).

Well, as I've said elsewhere, I don't agree that there is this "fundamental metaphysical difference", and having already given my reasons for this at some length on the "Turin the Hopeless" thread, I can't be bothered restating them here. So I wouldn't be particularly excited about promoting what to my mind is just an opinion of some readers. Certainly the story is, as you say very different anyway, and might change the view a good many people have of Tolkien as simply the Father of Fantasy Cliché... but I think that's more if it were widely read. When people have only seen a film version, most of their associations tend to concern the director or the actors– which is fair enough, since they have no way of telling what the source was like. If they do know the author's name, they'll usually think of him more-or-less as "that guy that wrote the book [film title] was based on". Well, then: I suppose if all you want to do is influence whatever vague notions people may have about the authors of books they haven't read, it can be done– but how much point is there to that?

[Galadriel55]

Personally, I am against the making of COH movie. It is quite different than LOTR, and addresses much more powerful themes. I consider the LOTR movie a disaster - and I'm afraid to think what COH could turn into .

I don't think that COH contradicts with LOTR. It is my belief that Tolkien (unintentionally, perhaps) summarised our world in his books. Although LOTR is not exactly a "hobbit walking-party", jokes are added in good measure, and lighten the atmosphere (as a whole) significantly. COH is totally different: although there is less description, it goes deeper. To say that - I'm not saying that LOTR isn't deep, - even the hobbit-jests are deep in a way - but it's in a different way than COH. I don't see how adding a different theme to his creation would make a dent in Tolkien's works, especially if you see the as I do.

[Formendacil]

I think any speculation on the possible effects of a Children of Húrin movie needs to first make fairly clear what the movie itself would look like.

I mean, Tumhalad seems to be saying that a CoH movie would necessarily present a different sort of story than LotR. Now, one could agree with Nerwen in stating that Tolkien does not have a fundamentally different moral landscape in these two books (an assertion that I, personally, only agree with if you see CoH as a part of the Silm). However, that does not mean that a movie CoH would actually differ from a movie LotR in this respect. Adaptation is the key--or the problem.

For example, I don't really think that Peter Jackson's movie version of the LotR actually got the metaphysical aesthetic of Middle-earth right--or, if you differentiate them, the metaphysical aesthetic of the LotR, specifically. Well, it's actually a mixed bag on this score--I think FotR succeeded mostly, but that TTT and RotK both have major failings--and these failings are especially strong when looked through the lens of the "metaphysical aesthetic."

So... if there was a movie-version of CoH, how do we know it would present Tolkien's metaphysics at all? Granted, we may see something new from Jackson and Co. in The Hobbit that may ameliorate my evaluation of their ability to present Tolkien's metaphysical aesthetic, but on the basis of the LotR, I would be concerned that any attempt Jackson et al might make on the CoH would get the externals right and the metaphysics wrong. In other words, in the hands of the wrong movie-makers, CoH would not change the public's perception of Tolkien, but reinforce it.

Of course, the argument goes the other way... let's try to imagine what a Pixar version of CoH would look like--okay, I admit that one is more amusingly incongruous than anything else--or imagine a Tim Burton version (whoa! bizarre... though maybe a better fit than Pixar)... and that's just naming two recognisable styles.

My whole point is that this is a speculative topic at best, and without some really clear vision of what a CoH movie would look like (which can only be decided arbitrarily), it's impossible to really have a constructive discussion about it.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

So... if there was a movie-version of CoH, how do we know it would present Tolkien's metaphysics at all?

Let's assume it is a reasonably faithful adaptation - this thread shouldn't need to concern itself with too many specifics. Let's assume it is faithful, encapsulates the "metaphysic" of the standalone novel, and is favourably reviewed. Director? Peter Weir, perhaps. But for the purposes of this discussion, we can safely imagine a scenario a few years (or decades) down the track; Jackson isn't directing, the Hobbit films are a nice memory, etc. Really, its entirely hypothetical though - I'm not asking for speculations about the nature of the film itself. We can make those assumptions for the purposes of my main question.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Let's assume it is a reasonably faithful adaptation - this thread shouldn't need to concern itself with too many specifics. Let's assume it is faithful, encapsulates the "metaphysic" of the standalone novel, and is favourably reviewed. Director? Peter Weir, perhaps. But for the purposes of this discussion, we can safely imagine a scenario a few years (or decades) down the track; Jackson isn't directing, the Hobbit films are a nice memory, etc. Really, its entirely hypothetical though - I'm not asking for speculations about the nature of the film itself. We can make those assumptions for the purposes of my main question.

But what is your main question? Is it whether the adaptation would be well-received, or whether it would "re-brand" the "Tolkien" name in the eyes of people who haven't in fact read Tolkien? Or something else?

[tumhalad2]

See my first post. My main question, which I thought was pretty clear, doesn't have anything to do with how well the film might be received. It's close to, as you put it, whether it would "re-brand" the "Tolkien" name in the eyes of people who haven't in fact read Tolkien?. But it's not restricted to people who haven't read him. Anyone; popular culture in general.

When people think "Tolkien" they think of what? hobbits, orcs, dragons, middle-earth, good vs. evil etc. I'm interested in how a film version of CoH has the capacity to change such perceptions, given the assumption above, and given that reviews of the book often exhibited surprise and astonishment and the variance in tone imminent in the novel when compared to LoTR.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

When people think "Tolkien" they think of what? hobbits, orcs, dragons, middle-earth, good vs. evil etc. I'm interested in how a film version of CoH has the capacity to change such perceptions, given the assumption above, and given that reviews of the book often exhibited surprise and astonishment and the variance in tone imminent in the novel when compared to LoTR.

As far as your basic premise goes--namely that CoH elicited some very different responses from reviewers than we were used to hearing, and that it would be interesting to see what a faithful adaptation would do along those lines--I think you posit an interesting question... but what I'm trying to say is that it's almost as counterfactual as asking "what if Cecil DeMille had lived long enough to make a LotR movie in the late 1970s--would it have changed people's perceptions of Tolkien?"

Obviously, I think the answer would be yes... but it's entirely too fraught with other things to really be answered at all. I think part of the reason we're so used to thinking of "hobbits, orcs, dragons, middle-earth, good vs. evil" when thinking of Tolkien is because of the movies we've already seen. Obviously, it goes deeper than that, because Tolkien's works have been around for over half a century now. All the same, it is precisely because the movies ignited such a Tolkien-craze in the past decade that CoH received so much attention--critical and otherwise--when it was released, and I daresay those same movies coloured the same critics' previous views of Tolkien to a large extent.

It's all tangled up. If Hollywood were to decide to have a go at CoH (assuming for a moment that they could pry the rights to make it out of the Estate's hands), they would probably want to replicate as many of the elements they could from the LotR--the elements that they thought made it such a success, which would probably be all the same elements mentioned: "hobbits, orcs, dragons, middle-earth, good vs. evil." For what it's worth, take "hobbits" off that list, and they can all be found in CoH.

What's more, given the huge financial success enjoyed by the previous films insofar as they were "family friendly" (and yes, I use those quotation marks emphatically... violence and all)--aka, marketable to the teenaged market--plus the fact that Hollywood is known for bowdlerizing things--who knows what sort of mess we might end up with! Evil!Faramir and Tomato!Denethor--to say nothing of GlorfindArwen--might be nothing compared with the character treatment we'd see in CoH. And, personally, I'd argue that CoH is more character-driven that LotR. We might see Nienor and Níniel divided into two characters, just to get rid of the whole squeamish incest thing... and if there's no incest, then maybe we just get Glaurung saying "Túrin, I killed your sister!" at the end, with Túrin slaying him mightily, ala Michael Bay action hero, to then live happily ever after thereafter...

Okay, I might be getting carried away slightly (indeed probably), but can you see where I have problems with the question? It's simply too counterfactual--too "what if?". The only way I could see a fairly accurate movie adaptation (again, there's the whole "pry it out of the Estate's hands thing") is if it were an independent production--but, of course, if anyone were to get the rights to make it, why would it be an indie company with a tight budget when Warner Brothers or Disney is waiting greedily in the wings?

I am probably too reality-minded, or something, to be considering this question...

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As far as your basic premise goes--namely that CoH elicited some very different responses from reviewers than we were used to hearing, and that it would be interesting to see what a faithful adaptation would do along those lines--I think you posit an interesting question... but what I'm trying to say is that it's almost as counterfactual as asking "what if Cecil DeMille had lived long enough to make a LotR movie in the late 1970s--would it have changed people's perceptions of Tolkien?"

Obviously, I think the answer would be yes... but it's entirely too fraught with other things to really be answered at all. I think part of the reason we're so used to thinking of "hobbits, orcs, dragons, middle-earth, good vs. evil" when thinking of Tolkien is because of the movies we've already seen. Obviously, it goes deeper than that, because Tolkien's works have been around for over half a century now. All the same, it is precisely because the movies ignited such a Tolkien-craze in the past decade that CoH received so much attention--critical and otherwise--when it was released, and I daresay those same movies coloured the same critics' previous views of Tolkien to a large extent.

Definitely, certain expectations were created by the films' release, expectations that sometimes had more to do with the movies themselves than with the themes of the novel.

I suppose I'm thinking more along the lines of theme and atmosphere, as opposed to plot elements per se, when considering what a movie CoH, faithfully adapted, might do. I realise it's very hypothetical, and I realise it almost certainly will never happen, but the question interests me precisely because we saw how powerful films could be in spreading certain ideas about the thematic nature of an author's work.

The Lord of the Rings films were phenomenal, in the sense that they were a phenomenon. Much can be said about the many defects inherent in the trilogy, but they did create a market for Tolkien, and furthermore they created particular expectations. CoH, in many respects, and despite the fact that it has "dragons, orcs, good and evil" etc. paints a starkly contrastive picture with LoTR. I agree with you, it is far more character driven that LoTR, in fact far less epic, in a sense. Not to mention Turin is a highly ambivalent character, not always driven by pure desires. For all his flaws, i find him much more amenable than Frodo or Aragorn; in fact I can imagine he would quite enjoy mocking Aragorn's faux heroic pronouncements.

I suppose to really answer this question we need to look at CoH itself, and more narrowly come to see where it contrasts with LoTR, and particularly the filmed version thereof, but I think it is obvious, even from cursory inspection, that the kinds of characters and thematic outcomes audiences were led to expect would be thwarted by a faithful film version. Perhaps there are larger issues at stake here, or at least more general questions. How do adaptations of famous authors work to mould expectations about the texts an author produces? And what happens when these expectations are not met?

Few authors are as famous or as widely read as Tolkien, and I cannot think of another example of a whole trilogy of megablockbuster films adapted from such a comparatively well known novel. Obviously the effects of the film trilogy have been enormous, and this is especially glaring in cases where people assume that some element of the film plot occured in the books. Many, for example, swear that the Army of the Dead really did liberate Minas Tirith, when in fact the Dead's role in the film amounted to a crude deus ex machina poorly executed.

But I digress. An hypothetical CoH film (faithfully executed) has the capacity to shift expectations and widen Tolkien's pop culture appeal, or at least generate a sense of nuance. Conversely, a badly made adaptation has the capacity to cheapen Tolkien and threated to make him even more generic than he is already perceived to be.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I suppose to really answer this question we need to look at CoH itself, and more narrowly come to see where it contrasts with LoTR, and particularly the filmed version thereof, but I think it is obvious, even from cursory inspection, that the kinds of characters and thematic outcomes audiences were led to expect would be thwarted by a faithful film version.

CoH has nothing to do with LotR, really. I don't quite understand why you so strenuously desire to contrast the two. The two stories take place in separate ages altogether. CoH's Age, the First, deals mostly with Elves, with Men as subordinates; whereas, in the 3rd Age plot, LotR is driven primarily by Men (and their miniature genealogical cousins, the Hobbits).

The dynamics are very much different, and the treatment very much darker -- not just in CoH, but in several stories compiled in the Silmarillion: the Kinslayings, Eol's abduction and later murder of Aredhel, the betrayal of Maeglin, the abduction of children by the sons of Feanor, and so on. Dwarves and Elves are at war, Elves are at war against other Elves, Men fight alongside the Elves, Men betray the Elves -- we are dealing with two separate historical entities, even if the historical context is part of a subcreated world.

It's rather like contrasting the 14th century during the plague and WWII. There are certain similarities and corresponding human behaviors, but otherwise we are dealing with totally different mindsets, ethics, codes of morality and political policies. A movie set in the 14th century would be decidedly different than one in the 20th century.

[Nerwen]

Nicely put, Morth, and I think you may have got at the heart of the problem. That CoH is very different story from LotR is not in dispute. That it is an "anti-LotR" (or a counterpoint, or a repudiation, or an authorial self-deconstruction, or whatever other colourful terms anyone feels like coming up with) ...no, I just don't see it. Surely the two would mirror each other more directly, or at least have many clear links to one another? I think the "contrast" is largely an illusion created by the fact the CoH happens to be the only other story to be published as a full-length adult novel. In fact, I suspect a lot of the "startled" critics had only read The Lord of the Rings before, and had no idea how complex and diverse Tolkien's fictional creation actually was.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Perhaps there are larger issues at stake here, or at least more general questions. How do adaptations of famous authors work to mould expectations about the texts an author produces? And what happens when these expectations are not met?

Oh, well, what usually happens is that quite a lot of people who go on to read the book either don't like it, or mentally re-write it to fit the film they've seen, as in your own example:

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Many, for example, swear that the Army of the Dead really did liberate Minas Tirith, when in fact the Dead's role in the film amounted to a crude deus ex machina poorly executed.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

An hypothetical CoH film (faithfully executed) has the capacity to shift expectations and widen Tolkien's pop culture appeal, or at least generate a sense of nuance. Conversely, a badly made adaptation has the capacity to cheapen Tolkien and threated to make him even more generic than he is already perceived to be.

Indeed; I'm sure that's something we can all agree with. I think what's puzzling everyone is why you've chosen such an elaborate way of posing a question that can't really be given a direct answer beyond "yes" or "no". As you might put it yourself, there's little there we can "engage with". Basically, you're asking, "if a certain series of very unlikely events took place, might they have a certain minor effect on pop culture?" Now, you can call this a thought experiment, if you like, but those tend to have a bit more point to them.

I have to say, though, tumhalad– at the risk of offending you– that my experience has been that people who go to a great deal of trouble to pose more-or-less dead-end (or unanswerable) questions are often really trying to argue something else entirely. I say this because my feeling is that there is a purpose to your asking this "hypothetical question" that you haven't yet stated as such. Is that right?

[tumhalad2]

No, I'm intersted in the question I posited at the beginning of the thread. However, I would like to make my whole thesis a little clearer.

The Children of Hurin fails to mirror the metaphysical world that is built throughout the text of The Lord of the Rings. That is my basic thesis; my basic point. I contend that this holds true regardless of whether or not one considers the story as a standalone work, or as a part of The Silmarillion as a whole. Whether Tolkien intended it to be or not, the Children of Hurin certainly forms a ‘counterpoint’ to LoTR, if not a ‘repudiation’. CoH differs in certain central thematic ways from its cousin, LoTR, and I find this to be an interesting area for exploration.

The dynamics are very much different, and the treatment very much darker -- not just in CoH, but in several stories compiled in the Silmarillion: the Kinslayings, Eol's abduction and later murder of Aredhel, the betrayal of Maeglin, the abduction of children by the sons of Feanor, and so on. Dwarves and Elves are at war, Elves are at war against other Elves, Men fight alongside the Elves, Men betray the Elves -- we are dealing with two separate historical entities, even if the historical context is part of a subcreated world.

I am not merely arguing about the “treatment” of certain events. I am suggesting that there is an unresolved tension that Tolkien sets up, deliberately or not, between the metaphysics of CoH on the one hand and LoTR on the other. We should bear in mind that Tolkien’s mythology was ever evolving, changing and growing. Tolkien, the author, changed throughout his lifetime; at various epochs of his life he displays particular piousness, at others, his letters betray a fervent intellectual curiosity that transcends his adherence to dogma. Why should the varied attitudes and changing perspectives of an author not be mirrored in his or her work?

In the case of CoH, I think it can be seen that Tolkien’s later (1950s) extrapolation of the story became far more novelistic in its treatment of character, its thematic depth and its emotional resonance than the version in The Silmarillion (Indeed, I understand that Christopher Tolkien extrapolated The Silmarillion version from the longer Narn; so in actual fact we have in CoH a far fuller rendition of the story). It thereby attains a poignancy and ambivalence that is not present in The Lord of the Rings, and unlike its more famous predecessor The Children of Hurin does not take for granted a providential, meaningful world. In point of fact, the novel begins on a dark note, with the death of Turin’s sister, Lalaith. Turin is perplexed; why should the children of the Elves have certainty about their fate, and yet the children of Men should be denied such knowledge? Turin, as a young boy, posits the question to Sador. “Then Lalaith will not come back?” Sador’s only response consists of honesty: “She will not come back...But where she has gone no man knows, or I do not.” Sador does not reply with dogmatic platitudes: he genuinely has no idea, and no one else seems to either. This is world where ‘faith’ in the religious sense – the conviction that life is purposeful and inherently meaningful – has little or no meaning. This is a heartbreaking realisation for the young Turin, who in the next paragraph can do no more than affirm the “rightness” of his father’s cause, a cause that Sador his himself ambivalent about, or at least wary of.

There is little Gandalf-esque Providence. “Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the ringmaker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker”. Such mysterious, providential forces are not to be found in the pages of CoH, and no character at any time hints at, or claims knowledge of, forces that they cannot immediately experience. Turin’s worldview is determinedly pragmatic; his quest is not divine, nor his life afforded divine protections. He is not defined by, nor compelled on by, unseen spiritual forces. Morgoth’s curse manifests itself in the wily machinations of Glaurung the dragon, or the cruel twists of ironic fate. Never does it seem that there are unknown, though beneficial, forces at work against this, or that Turin’s merely putting “faith” in the Valar would alleviate the curse.

This is all to note that in many respects the “metaphysics” of the two novels cannot be reconciled, and that the differences between them are more than merely superficial, or down to the nature of the publishing history of CoH.

Given all that, I was interested in the reception a film version may receive. Evidently, however, there are too many disagreements about the nature of CoH itself to allow for a productive discussion along the lines I originally proposed. I feel, at least, as though I have articulated my own position more clearly.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Such mysterious, providential forces are not to be found in the pages of CoH, and no character at any time hints at, or claims knowledge of, forces that they cannot immediately experience. Turin’s worldview is determinedly pragmatic; his quest is not divine, nor his life afforded divine protections. He is not defined by, nor compelled on by, unseen spiritual forces. Morgoth’s curse manifests itself in the wily machinations of Glaurung the dragon, or the cruel twists of ironic fate. Never does it seem that there are unknown, though beneficial, forces at work against this, or that Turin’s merely putting “faith” in the Valar would alleviate the curse.

What then do you make of the warning from Ulmo that Gelmir and Arminas delivered to Orodreth? If it had but been heeded, Nargothrond would have been preserved, Finduilas would have lived, and Túrin might never have come under Glaurung's spell in the first place. Wouldn't you call that a beneficial divine force at work?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The Children of Hurin fails to mirror the metaphysical world that is built throughout the text of The Lord of the Rings. That is my basic thesis; my basic point. I contend that this holds true regardless of whether or not one considers the story as a standalone work, or as a part of The Silmarillion as a whole. Whether Tolkien intended it to be or not, the Children of Hurin certainly forms a ‘counterpoint’ to LoTR, if not a ‘repudiation’. CoH differs in certain central thematic ways from its cousin, LoTR, and I find this to be an interesting area for exploration.

I knew you were going to get back to this -- inexorably, like the returning waters of a tidal basin. That is your thesis? Then I disagree, like during the last several reiterations of this same argument.

CoH has the same elements of Greek tragedy that suffuse many separate stories in Tolkien's canon, expect for one major difference. Many aspects of Turin's life are directly lifted from the Kalevala, from unintended incest with his sister, right down to the talking sword ending his life. There also is no eucatastrophe at the end if the tale, but then things didn't work out so swell for Eol's family either. Or Feanor's family (right down through another age and a 2nd generation). Is CoH bitter? Certainly. Is it unprecedented in Tolkien's canon? Not necessarily.

Speaking theoretically, if Tolkien had managed to write the Feanorian saga from the point of view of his family, then I am sure you would be saying it repudiates LotR, and you'd be equally wrong. Look at the events surrounding that family and their irrevocable oath: rejection of the Valar, kinslaying, deception, internicine war among Elves, kidnapping, infanticide, rejection of redemption, suicide. There is no eucatastophic event that saves the sons of Feanor, the eucatastrophe that occurs eludes them altogether. It is a Greek tragedy with reversals of fortune, hamartia, recognition of fate or doom, and ensuing pathos. Just like CoH.

From a different standpoint, CoH, like most of the stories in the Silmarillion (including the Akallabeth), are Old Testament Tolkien as opposed to LotR being New Testament Tolkien. Even the tenor, syntax and presentation of the disparate Ages are highly distinct. But I don't see the story as a "repudiation" of anything. You insist on looking at things in a microcosm, and that's you prerogative; however, your argument is rather like the old adage "Not seeing the forest from the trees."

I'm out of this circumlocutionary debate. Chasing one's tail may be enjoyable momentarily, but in the end one gets a headache.