Why did Tolkien dislike Disney?

[TheLostPilgrim]

I've read that Tolkien intensely disliked the work of Walt Disney and Disney in general--how come?

[Inziladun]

I'm sure others can elucidate, but there are indications he didn't like Disney's style of animation, for one thing. When discussing proposed illustrations of a German edition of The Hobbit, he criticized them as being

....too 'Disnified' for my taste: Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of...

Letters # 107

He seems to think "Disnification' to be a debasement of his work. Oddly, in my opinion, Peter Jackson could be guilty of similar sins.

In Letters # 234 he said the story of the Pied Piper was a "terrible presage of the most vulgar elements in Disney".

Vulgar has many meanings, but the two I think most likely to be relevant are:

1. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant, and
2. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.

So he seems to have thought Disney an embodiment of crudeness and the "modern" fairy-tale he had no time for.

[Galadriel55]

I have not read anything about it, so my thought are only my opinion on the matter and should not be treated as facts.

Firstly, I would think Tolkien wouldn't want to have his characters depicted like this.

While he has comedy in TH and LOTR, it is not purely comedy followed by more ridiculous comedy and some more mockery and comedy and a touch of adventure to give a Happily Ever After. His characters and his plot have depth to them beyond the Disney, they have complexity, they are not so purely clack-and-white (aha, if it's a princess, she's gonna be the good one and she likely has some evil stepmother and/or which that hates her... Instead, is Gollum good or bad? Does Radagast need redemption? Is Feanor good, evil, manic, or all three?)

Secondly, on a similar note, Tolkien's characters are different. Disney's are pretty much the same. If you see a princess cartoon, that princess will almost always have some set characteristics, and all shehas to do is change her dress and hair colour to turn from Cinderella into Sleeping Beauty. The prince is of course this gallant hero who saves everyone. These characters don't even have personalities, they just have appearances.

Tolkien's characters, on the other hand, have personalities. You can't say Beren and Turin have the same personality placed into different plots, because they are vastly different. You can't even say Merry and Pippin have the same personality, even though they are like brothers.

I would say that TH is the simplest work in the canon, and you don't really have that many differences between the Dwarves' personalities. That's because you don't need that many differences. They are a small crowd. Some stand out from the crowd - we get a lot of characterization of Thorin, and only slightly less of Balin. And the rest are not treated as major characters.


So I think Tolkien wouldn't want his characters to be fitted into a stereotypical frame and have the whole movie ridiculing them by making them do random funny things like tripping over and falling into things and what have you. Disney seems to sift out all the details and depth and leave only the "fun" layer. And... that's not something an author would want to happen to his story. And this idea fits in well with what Inzil quoted.

[Morthoron]

Because Tolkien counted, and there were actually eleventy-one Dalmatians. Tolkien was always a stickler for numbers.

[jallanite]

Tolkien’s first recorded mention of Disney is in May, 1937, a few months before Snow White hit the screens.

Disney was then very much in the media about the film, which most commentators expected to bomb. A cartoon that one was expected to spend 83 minutes watching! It sound like a joke at the time. Most of these commentators had not noticed Disney’s more realistic shorts particularly and many of these were also flawed. The animated film The Old Mill which previewed the new more realistic style had not come out yet. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYEmL0d0lZE . This film is still one of film’s all time landmarks. Yet today it seems rather show-offy and attempts to punch up its story with gags.

Tolkien probably knew Disney as the most well-known producer of animated shorts and his opinions at that time was the common opinion among intellectuals who did not pay much attention to animation. He would have seen cheap Mickey Mouse spin-off books in bookstores which hardly impressed anyone and are now all out of print.

I read somewhere that Tolkien and C. S. Lewis saw Snow White twice. Lewis’ thoughts on the film are given at http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2005/1...lt-disney.html . Lewis had mixed opinions, being very impressed by some of Snow White and disgusted by much of it. Lewis reveals his abysmal ignorance of music by his use of the word jazz, when there is not a jazz passage anywhere in the film.

Lewis’ final comment is posh snobbery:

What might have come of it if the man had been educated — or even brought up in a decent society.

Still, Lewis’ mention of vulgarity in Disney comes out in other, later commentators. The studio’s method of adapting their sources was to gag them up and add musical numbers. Even among those who love the Disney films, there is a strong tendency to see Snow White and Pinocchio as the best and the later films as somewhat or very much dumbed down and weakened compared to their sources.

Peter Jackson’s treatment of Gimli in his films is the kind of thing that many people don’t like in Disney. There is too much added humour. The forced cuteness of Thumper in Bambi is an example which undercuts the possible magnificence of much of the rest of the film. In Cinderella the story is padded out with cat-and-mouse cartoon silliness. Disney’s Jungle Book is a yet another example of that kind of watering down. Also, many of Disney’s best animators left him for opportunities to make their own mark.

But though Tolkien was not a common viewer of cinema, apparently he had seen or heard enough of Disney that he was willing to spend considerable time discussing the possibility of a Lord of the Rings animated film. At that time feature-length animation was almost owned by Disney, as it still is in North America, and people tended to think of animation as the stuff that Disney did. Disney was far bigger than any of his competitors.

Currently the animated films connected with Hayao Miyazaki are in my opinion and the opinions of many others much superior. But whether Myazaki’s Studio Ghibli could do The Hobbit is somewhat dubious. Their adaptation of western fantasy, Tales from Earthsea, supposedly based on Ursula K. LeGuin’s Earthsea tales, was a popular and critical disaster, the only disaster produced by Studio Ghibli. They generally produce their own material or drastically adapt material that they buy from others.

For those unfamiliar with Miyazaki, I present what some have called the greatest sequence in film, the original Japanese version of a quiet musical number from Whisper of the Heart: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkk...ese_shortfilms . There is no Disney-style humour but lots of gentle humour of character if you look at the expressions on the faces of the two performers. The girl Shizuku is at first stiff, shy and embarrassed about performing but gains confidence. She has previously met the old shop-keeper and they have become instant friends, which explains his wink to her.

Here is a sample of Studio Ghibli output from a number of films: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcKVUkiorkA . I admit that only highlights presented like this make Miyazaki look somewhat garish. It is the quieter moments that make his films what they are.

There is little that would be called vulgarity and no dancing and singing salt shakers and no musical numbers, except the one I presented and one in My Neighbors the Yamadas.

I was a fan of Disney when a child, but have since turned away from most Disney output. Even as a child I could see that a lot of it offered cheap substitutes for better things. Carl Bark’s Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge tales were two of the exceptions. And there I was puzzled that outside of the comic books the studio seemed not to be interested in presenting what to me was the real Donald or Uncle Scrooge. When Disney Studios did adapt Carl Barks’ Uncle Scrooge stories for the television series Duck Tales, they naturally changed them for the worse and vulgarized them and watered them down.

I suspect Tolkien mostly ignored Disney output as common, vulgar, and silly stuff in which he had no interest.

I entirely agree with Galadriel55’s analysis.

[Mithalwen]

http://briansibleysblog.blogspot.co....max-results=10

No disrespect to the responses above but the drawings Brian Sibley gives on his blog may be all the answer we need!

[davem]

Ironic that the Estates of both men have so much in common when it comes to their approach to copyright.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Ironic that the Estates of both men have so much in common when it comes to their approach to copyright.

Of course, any consideration of one copyright being more worthy of protection than the other is purely subjective.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by davem

Ironic that the Estates of both men have so much in common when it comes to their approach to copyright.

I see nothing ironic about it.

Do you think the estate should permit any and all use of material under their copyright for free because Disney is very protective?

Another probable reference by Tolkien to Walt Disney’s Snow White occurs in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME 12), page 23 (emphasis mine):

But we do not talk about dwarf as often as we talk of man, or even goose, and memories are not good enough among men to keep hold of a special plural for a race now relegated (such is their fate and the fall of their great pride) to folktales, where at least some shadow of the truth is preserved, or at last to nonsense tales where they have become mere figures of fun who do not wash their hands.

This appears to be a reference to the scene in Disney’s Snow White in which Snow White forces the dwarfs to wash their dirty hands before dinner. I know of no other account in which dwarfs do not wash their hands.

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Disney has some charm to it that I will always love, but personally, I find that they always fall short of the true message of stories for the sake of entertainment. Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, and Little Red Riding Hood became a ton of... Wait... I can't say that word here. I mean, come on! Ariel dies in her real story, and the guy marries someone else!

However, when I was little, I loved the movies. I always will, though I can now see the flaws in Disney and Pixar. It's an individual opinion, and Tolkien didn't like it. Well, I guess that's too bad.

It could also have something to do with the fact that Walt Disney started his animation company to help the Germans with war expenses in WWII.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by MCRmyGirl4eva

It could also have something to do with the fact that Walt Disney started his animation company to help the Germans with war expenses in WWII.

I don't know the truth of that matter, but from what I've gathered that seems to be a urban legend without much credibility.

In fact, Disney, like Warner Bros., used their cartoons to promote US patriotism and denounce the Axis during WWII. This article explains the propaganda elements there.

At any rate, as virulently opposed to Nazi Germany as Tolkien was, I cannot imagine that he would not have seized on any supposed Nazi sympathies of Disney as an excuse to dislike Disney Studios all the more, and you'd think Tolkien would have made mention of that at some point.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It could also have something to do with the fact that Walt Disney started his animation company to help the Germans with war expenses in WWII.

***????

It's amazing some of the stories which have circulated about Disney, based on God knows what varying agendas; I've seen a video where an Iranian professor calls him a Jew (he was an Irish Presbyterian), and that his Tom & Jerry cartoons (MGM/Hanna-Barbera* of course) were Zionist propaganda!

Disney began his animation company in 1925 and his iconic first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, premiered in 1928. At this time of course there was no war on, and Germany was governed by the weak but democratic Weimar government. When WWII started Disney did get involved- as a major producer of US propaganda cartoons supporting the war effort and assailing the Axis (including "Education for Death – The Making of a Nazi" and the tasteless but Oscar-winning "Right In Der Fuhrer's Face"), as well as a large number of training films for the military. In fact it could be argued that Government war work 1942-45 saved a company which had taken huge losses on Pinocchio and Fantasia, both box-office flops.

Here's a sampling: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/85033

*Jewish Zionists? No, Lebanese-Americans- in other words, Arabs!

[jallanite]

Doing some research, I find that from 1931 almost all Disney book material was produced by Whitman Books, mostly as part of their inexpensive Big Little Books line. When Whitman started, most children’s books usually appeared only at Christmas time in most stores, but Whitman’s inexpensive publications changed that. See http://www.biglittlebooks.com/historyofBLBs.html .

In Britain these normally appeared as Giant Midget Books®. Tolkien could have seen these books in various bookstores. From these Tolkien might have gotten his idea that the Disney Studio was influencing American children’s book illustration, which was not true. Rather Disney animated stories and newspaper strips were the origins of the illustrations in some of these books which reprinted Disney material.

The books usually had pictures from their source material and text on alternate pages and sold for 10¢ in the US and Canada for about 300 pages, whereas in the U.S. The Hobbit sold for 495¢ ($4.95). Obviously most kids would be more open to almost 50 books about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, the Lone Ranger, Dick Tracey, Flash Gordon, and other popular characters over one book about something called a hobbit which didn’t even have a newspaper strip and didn’t appear in film serials.

It is not surprising if Tolkien were predisposed to see Disney as trash. But the film Snow White surprised most of those who had poo-pooed it before its release by being an astounding success. By May 1939 Snow White’s total international gross of $6.5 million made it then the most successful sound film of all time. Disney had won. Sergei Eistenstein called it the greatest picture every made. Many today would at least admit that it is one of the greatest films.

C. S. Lewis made a fool of himself in his one comment on the film. What Tolkien thought about it is now known, other than he classed it a one of the tales in which Dwarfs appear as figures of fun, which was indeed Disney’s intention, so that’s OK. Although Disney was not sure that his scene of the Dwarfs’ weeping when they thought Snow White was dead would really work. Would audiences really feel grief for comic animated characters? The scene worked splendidly.

Like most film viewers, despite my misgivings about much Disney output, I very much like his Snow White. Therefore, I would like to see Tolkien liking it. But the animator Hayao Miyazaki is on record as not liking Disney’s Snow White, and I have more respect for Hayoa Miyazaki than for Disney.

Many American comic strips and many American animated cartoons modify faces so that human eyes instead of being wider than they are tall (like <•><•>), are taller than they are wide (that is two eyes look something like (•)(•) ). This ought to bother people, except that they are so used to it in a cartoon that they don’t notice it. For example, in Disney’s Snow White the more human characters like Snow White and the Witch have normal human eyes but the Dwarfs have turned eyes.

Perhaps that was what Lewis was on about when he wrote:

Dwarfs ought to be ugly, of course, but not in that way.

Perhaps he was not so used to the turned-eye convention that the look of the faces bothered him. They might have seemed to him to express overmuch an American sense of flat cartoonishness to his eyes.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

http://briansibleysblog.blogspot.co....max-results=10

No disrespect to the responses above but the drawings Brian Sibley gives on his blog may be all the answer we need!

Those pictures are hideous! I always judge my Tolkien artists by the quality of their Hobbits, and as soon as they come out looking like the sort of comedy Leprechaun sold in a seaside gift shop, that artist goes down the pan for me. Hobbits are just smaller Men. It's not hard to do them right!

Disney...never liked it. The only thing I could bear for years was The Jungle Book. I have mellowed a bit now and can even permit their version of Winnie the Pooh (having read the original to ye childe, it actually has some slightly distasteful bits, so I am begrudgingly content with a sanitised version), and I love the Pixar films and things like Pirates. But Mickey Mouse etc still leave me utterly cold.

Maybe it wasn't just the artwork that worried Tolkien but the inevitable sanitisation that comes with Disneyfication - not for nothing has that phrase entered the language to describe anything airbrushed to make it more 'cute'.

I should think Tolkien will have seen some Disney films, after all he was raising children in an age before television and many went to the cinema on an almost daily basis, especially during WWII. Children would often spend an entire Saturday in there watching an endless stream of cartoons for a penny or two. Nobody went to 'see a film', you went to see a film, the news, a few cartoons, maybe another film...

But one element not mentioned is that the British have an incredibly strong tradition of comics/animation/illustration all of their own. Disney has always been just one amongst many options in this country. Tolkien's children will have had access to Rupert the Bear and DC Thomson titles such as The Beano and The Dandy, amongst others. Not sure UK based animation was a huge strength back in the mid 20th c but it certainly is now. Disney would have had reasonable cinema success in the UK, but it didn't have much success with comics/books. I think it's likely Tolkien's awareness of their output will have come from cinema visits.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Disney...never liked it. The only thing I could bear for years was The Jungle Book. I have mellowed a bit now and can even permit their version of Winnie the Pooh (having read the original to ye childe, it actually has some slightly distasteful bits, so I am begrudgingly content with a sanitised version), and I love the Pixar films and things like Pirates. But Mickey Mouse etc still leave me utterly cold.

I think there is a profound difference between Disney's silly cartoons like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy, which I could never stand (I'm a Warner Bros. fan all the way -- give me a war of words between Bugs and Daffy or Pepe LePew calling for his love, "Jullio, Jullio, herefore art me, Romiette!"), and Disney's animation from his studio's classic period.

I have purchased (ostensibly for my daughter, mind) the remastered additions of everything from Disney's classic period, and the results are a stunning artistic and technological achievement in animation. It is ridiculous to even compare such artistry to Japanese Anime, which is computer generated and every character looks like a Speed Racer clone. We are talking about artists creating thousands of hand-painted cells, not Pikachu, Dragonball Z or Ghibli drek.

Look at the artwork of Fantasia, Pinocchio or Bambi. The impressionist paintings of Tyrus Wong for the backgrounds in Bambi are breathtaking, and who has not felt a visceral shock when Bambi's mother is shot? Like Tolkien's Sauron in LotR, Disney did not physically reveal his villain, Man, but that makes the evil all the more abhorrent. Likewise, the attack of Monstro the whale and violent actions of the sea in Pinocchio are landmarks in animation. And finally, I still love to watch Mussorgky's "A Night on Bald Mountain" followed by "Ave Maria" in Fantasia. Of course, one can't go wrong with Leopold Stokowski conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra.

I think a few folks here are not giving Disney much credit, and neither did C.S. Lewis, who had a lot of gall to denigrate Disney, what with his inane hodge-podge of mythological miscellany and overt allegory in his Narnia series. One could be just as disdainful of Lewis in that regard. Can anyone say stuffed shirt?

[Mithalwen]

A lot of the classic Disney would have been perhaps a little late for Tolkien's children? Priscilla would have been ten when Snow White came out though I suppose with limited options they might have had a wider audience than the most obvious target market.

I wonder if their roots were just too shallow for Tolkien, to cutesy?

[Bêthberry]

Anyone who cannot appreciate Fantasia must have some kind of ideological blinders. My parents loved it and so did my kids; in fact, it was one of their favourite videos, so there's some cross-generational appreciation. Add me into the mix too.

Fantasia is immune to the criticisms one can make of the later Disney, with its stereotypical princesses, wicked step mothers, and expurgation if not bowlderisation of the terror in the original fairy tales.

I suspect Tolkien had too much respect for real fairy tales to like that dumbing down. Lewis I have no liking for, so I'd best not comment at length on his thought. Remember his silly comment about myth being "lies through silver"? At least it gave us Tolkien's defense of myth in Mythopoeia.

[Mithalwen]

But even Priscilla was 13 in 1940. I didn't see Fantasia other than clips on "Screen Test" until I was grown up and wasn't that bothered. My mother loathed and vetoed cartoons however I know she was taken to see Snow White as a very young child (had a Doc model to prove it- merchandising is not a new thing!!!). I don't know if that put her off...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But even Priscilla was 13 in 1940. I didn't see Fantasia other than clips on "Screen Test" until I was grown up and wasn't that bothered. My mother loathed and vetoed cartoons however I know she was taken to see Snow White as a very young child (had a Doc model to prove it- merchandising is not a new thing!!!). I don't know if that put her off...

Same here. I never saw Fantasia until I had the Internet at home. Disney classic animation things just aren't shown on UK TV even now. You can get a Sky sub to their channels or buy DVDs (and even then they are only available for a few months before being discontinued), but you just won't see them on BBC or ITV. The only way a child can get 'into' Disney in this country is if their parents make a conscious decision to do so.

I wasn't exactly starved for animation when I was a child. There were endless things to watch that meant I was barely aware of Disney until I was a teenager. Hanna -Barbera's Top Cat; The Flintstones; Whacky Races; and Scooby Doo. European stuff like Barbapapa and Ulysses 31, or action from Battle of the Planets, Godzilla and Spider-Man. And the classic series made by Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin - Bagpuss, The Clangers, Ivor the Engine and Noggin the Nog - I'd venture to say that if you randomly sampled 100 middle aged Brits to find out which animation they felt a strong sentimental attachment to, anything by Postgate/Firmin would be mentioned by the majority, Disney not so much. And that's because once TV came along, Disney chose not to be part of it here, not even on video cassette, and there was just so much more available (they have certainly caught up since - there can't be a kid alive who hasn't seen Nemo/Toy Story/Cars).

But...I think Tolkien was highly likely to have seen Disney at the cinema though. Priscilla may have been a young teenager but they grew up more slowly back then (and Priscilla was keen on cuddly toys until she grew up), and from what I hear Snow White was enjoyed by all ages. I wonder if there is anything in the Hammond/Scull books or the letters? Maybe his cinema visits were too trivial to be noted?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Did Fantasia even make it to the UK while the war was on?

----------

Tolkien often compares Disney unfavorably to Arthur Rackham, whose somewhat Gothicized realism is a world away from "cute", even when amusing.

http://garybuckley.files.wordpress.c...9/img_0174.jpg
Could we have an Ent here? (Note: the tree is a rowan).

http://truehate.files.wordpress.com/...kham-bears.jpg
These are *not* the 3 Bears as Disney would have done them!

Snow White and her short roommates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Snow_White.jpg

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I have purchased (ostensibly for my daughter, mind) the remastered additions of everything from Disney's classic period, and the results are a stunning artistic and technological achievement in animation. It is ridiculous to even compare such artistry to Japanese Anime, which is computer generated and every character looks like a Speed Racer clone. We are talking about artists creating thousands of hand-painted cells, not Pikachu, Dragonball Z or Ghibli drek.

I don't dispute that many of Disney's works are very beautiful, but I do disagree with you strongly about Japanese animation, of which I suspect you have little experience. Japanese animation shifted to mostly using computer animation at about the time Western animation did, and previously it was made with, yes, cell animation. You will find, for example, that Studio Ghibli's Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke films (which personally I consider the most beautiful of their works) were both cell animated. If they are drek and unworthy of being called art, then the same goes for Disney's classic works.

Series such as Pokémon and Dragonball Z are neither known for their art quality nor intended to have outstanding art, and they run for many hundreds of episodes. But there are many series which are known for being beautiful, and of course, animated films almost always have higher production values per amount of time than animated series do. Lumping things like Pokémon and Dragonball Z together with Studio Ghibli films is a bit on the silly side. Some people have the impression that Japanese animation all looks the same, but I suspect that's because most of what they've seen are imported long-running kids' shows, which tend to have more homogenous and lower quality art. Chances are you have not seen the best stuff.

To name a few series/films which have excellent and/or unusual artwork: Hotarubi no Mori e, Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo, Croisée in a Foreign Labyrinth, The Twelve Kingdoms, Mouryou no Hako, House of Five Leaves, Katanagatari, Mushishi, Aria the Animation, Revolutionary Girl Utena the Movie, Mononoke, Kemono no Souja Erin, Le Chevalier D'Eon, Kara no Kyoukai, Tokyo Magnitude 8.0, X, Seirei no Moribito, 5 Centimeters Per Second, Michiko to Hatchin.

I certainly agree with Jallanite above that it's dubious whether Studio Ghibli could properly adapt Tolkien's work. They seem very bad at adapting books faithfully, so I really wouldn't like to see what would happen to the Hobbit or LOTR. I daresay there would be more of an outcry over that than over Peter Jackson's adaptations.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Tolkien often compares Disney unfavorably to Arthur Rackham, whose somewhat Gothicized realism is a world away from "cute", even when amusing.

http://garybuckley.files.wordpress.c...9/img_0174.jpg
Could we have an Ent here? (Note: the tree is a rowan).

http://truehate.files.wordpress.com/...kham-bears.jpg
These are *not* the 3 Bears as Disney would have done them!

Snow White and her short roommates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Snow_White.jpg

Wow, that art is beautiful! No wonder Tolkien spoke of that work favourably.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And the classic series made by Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin - Bagpuss, The Clangers, Ivor the Engine and Noggin the Nog - I'd venture to say that if you randomly sampled 100 middle aged Brits to find out which animation they felt a strong sentimental attachment to, anything by Postgate/Firmin would be mentioned by the majority,

Bagpuss was voted the most popular children's programme ever.... love the Firmin Postgate stuff - it was the noise of cartoons proper that irritated my Mum so these missed the cut...and now Ishall have the mouse song as an ear worm all day...

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Anyone who cannot appreciate Fantasia must have some kind of ideological blinders.

Fantasia is immune to the criticisms one can make of the later Disney

See http://www.brainpickings.org/index.p...-philip-glass/ for an account in which Igor Stravinksy strongly blames Disney for what Disney did to his Rite of Spring in Fantasia. Stravinsky called Disney’s transformation in that film an “unresisting imbecility.”

Again and again I have seen complaints of a work being untrue to the original. There are almost always those who support the original and those who support the adaptation and can’t understand what the fuss is about.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tolkien's children will have had access to Rupert the Bear and DC Thomson titles such as The Beano and The Dandy, amongst others.

Rupert the Bear first appeared in 1920 and so was probably known to the Tolkien family, but in May 1937 The Dandy and The Beano could not be. The Dandy was first published later that year in December and The Beano was first published the following year. Something in May 1937 or before had made Tolkien think that there was a real danger of American childrens’ book illustrations being influenced by the Disney studios.

Disney films were also not included on North American networks, other than portions of them in some of Disney’s own programs: Disneyland (renamed later) and Micky Mouse Club, and on a few other later Disney programs. Disney, unlike other film production companies, refused to sell any television rights to his older films.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

----------

Tolkien often compares Disney unfavorably to Arthur Rackham, whose somewhat Gothicized realism is a world away from "cute", even when amusing.

That has to be an ent, and those bears give a sense of what he would do with Beorn. The Snow White one also suggests he could have done Gimli and Galadriel well..

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

See http://www.brainpickings.org/index.p...-philip-glass/ for an account in which Igor Stravinksy strongly blames Disney for what Disney did to his Rite of Spring in Fantasia. Stravinsky called Disney’s transformation in that film an “unresisting imbecility.”

Again and again I have seen complaints of a work being untrue to the original. There are almost always those who support the original and those who support the adaptation and can’t understand what the fuss is about.

When artists believe they have sole claim to interpretation or meaning, their own artistic ego creates an ideological blinder.


This is a fascinating link. I like the discussion about the nature of creativity. I'm one of the ones who accepts that an artist can make the interpretation he or she sees fit, but that doesn't mean the audience has to have a similar perspective: the comparison of the two become simply another subject of artistic discussion. I also don't necessarily grant that the artist or author has sole authority over interpretation.

In the case of Jackson, I think the problem was exacerbated by his initial claims of how faithful he was to Tolkien. That set up expectations which the films undermined. It is therefore interesting that so far the posters I've seen for TH don't even mention Tolkien.

off topic, but Stravinksy's attitude that "the mass adds nothing to art" strikes me as being the very opposite of Tolkien's attitude towards general readers. Stravinsky is as much a snob as Lewis. His complaint about the "execrable" musical performance also reminds me of the literati's objections to Tolkien's work.

Whether Fantasia's version of Bald Mountain is consistent with Stravinsky's idea is grounds for discussion but that difference doesn't denigrate the creativity of Fantasia, how it inspired audiences. Much as I dislike the films, they have at least brought many, many people into contact with Middle-earth and at least some of those have gone on to appreciate the books. The same can be said of the Harry Potter books, that they hooked children on reading in a way that teachers and schools were unable to.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Whether Fantasia's version of Bald Mountain is consistent with Stravinsky's idea is grounds for discussion but that difference doesn't denigrate the creativity of Fantasia, how it inspired audiences.

Night on Bald Mountain was a tune by Modest Mossorsky and has nothing to do with Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, save that both were used in different parts of Walt Disney’s Fantasia.

About rights to reuse, that Stravinsky did not sue suggests that Disney had full rights to adapt Rite of Spring as he saw fit. Similarly Jackson had full rights to make any changes in The Lord of the Rings that he wished to. Similarly William Shakespeare had full rights to modify the tales of Hamlet and King Lear into tragedies (though the earlier tales he adapted had happy endings). Similarly Columbia Pictures were fully within their rights in taking a serious minor western tale called Cat Ballou and changing it into an enormously successful comedy film.

Nahum Tate in 1621 modified King Lear to have a happy ending, and dropped the fool from the play, and married Edgar and Cordelia. This was the version presented until 1838 and reduces any changes that Jackson made in The Lord of the Rings to almost nothing. This version appears to have inspired many viewers, including Samuel Johnson.

The film director Akira Kurosawa modified Shakespeare’s original Macbeth and King Lear into his films Throne of Blood and Ran.

In short, that adapters have full rights is generally a given. The question which may be discussed is whether the adaptation was a wise one. I have seen this account of Stravinsky complaining before but not seen any discussion about whether Stravinsky has a point. This tends to suggest that Stravinsky does not, or perhaps rather that people who discuss the film Fantasia tend to be more knowledgeable about animation than about music.

Although see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring :

Among those impressed by the film was Gunther Schuller, later a composer, conductor and jazz scholar. The Rite of Spring sequence, he says, overwhelmed him and determined his future career in music: “I hope [Stravinsky] appreciated that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of musicians were turned onto The Rite of Spring ... through Fantasia, musicians who might otherwise never have heard the work, or at least not until many years later”.

[Morthoron]

For the record, it was Leopold Stokowski who adapted The Rite of Spring for Fantasia, distilling a 40+ minute composition down to the 22:34 minutes needed to fit the parameters of the film. I think Disney dabbled on the piano a bit, but he couldn't really score classical compositions.

In any case, Disney used the adaptation of The Rite of Spring and paid Stravinsky for the privilege, even though Disney was not legally bound to pay him at all. You see, copyrights from Imperial Russia were not recognized by the United States and several other countries; therefore, Stravinsky's 1913 piece was considered in the public domain, "but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection":

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...3.96-9205.html

Stravinsky, a man who enjoyed living the high life but who knew full well he couldn't have his champagne and caviar from composing, readily took the money ($6000), and did just about anything else to keep up his celebrity lifestyle, even appearing "in a magazine ad for a record player":

http://www.classical.net/music/books...520256158a.php

Stravinsky did not object to the use of his work in Fantasia at the time of its release, but only many years later, after he was embittered and denied further funding when a planned use of Stravinsky's burlesque opera-ballet Renard by Disney never came to fruition.

So let's not make Stravinsky out to be some kind of musical purist, please. In contrast to Tolkien, who took the money for film rights to The Lord of the Rings but never believed his work could be made into a movie, Stravinsky was completely aware that his composition would be adapted for Fantasia.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"You see, copyrights from Imperial Russia were not recognized by the United States and several other countries; therefore, Stravinsky's 1913 piece was considered in the public domain, "but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection""

But surely Le Sacre du Printemps was copyrighted in Switzerland where it was written or France where it was premiered, wasn't it?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

But surely Le Sacre du Printemps was copyrighted in Switzerland where it was written or France where it was premiered, wasn't it?

The Rite of Spring was originally copyright in Germany by Russischer Musik Verlag in 1913. The copyright was transferred to Boosey and Hawkes in 1947.

I have no idea what rules of copyright Stravinsky was allegedly referring to which would possibly put the work into public domain in the U.S. in 1940.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

"You see, copyrights from Imperial Russia were not recognized by the United States and several other countries; therefore, Stravinsky's 1913 piece was considered in the public domain, "but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection""

But surely Le Sacre du Printemps was copyrighted in Switzerland where it was written or France where it was premiered, wasn't it?

As far as I know, the copyright was by music publisher Fabien Sevitzky's Russische Musik-Verlag in Russia in 1913. Several sources indicate it was a Russian copyright, but I can't verify it (the composition itself was sketched in St. Petersburg, written in Switzerland and finished somewhere in France on a train ). Here is the front cover of the 1914 4-hand piano reduction of the score written in both French and Russian:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Spring1913.jpg

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Night on Bald Mountain was a tune by Modest Mossorsky and has nothing to do with Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, save that both were used in different parts of Walt Disney’s Fantasia . . . . Among those impressed by the film was Gunther Schuller, later a composer, conductor and jazz scholar. The Rite of Spring sequence, he says, overwhelmed him and determined his future career in music: “I hope [Stravinsky] appreciated that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of musicians were turned onto The Rite of Spring ... through Fantasia, musicians who might otherwise never have heard the work, or at least not until many years later”.

Note I didn't say Stravinsky wrote NoBM. I referred to it because it has undergone adaptations similar to that Stravinsky was complaining about, but even more so, from Mussorgsky to Rimsky-Korsakov to Leopold Stokowski and so is an even stronger case for the recreativity that Philip Glass and Beck were referring to in your link. It also happens to be the section of Fantasia that had the strongest impact on my children and I began my entry with with its effect on my children, my point being similar to that made by Gunther Schuller about RoS.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Did Fantasia even make it to the UK while the war was on?

Almost certainly. Most films did as it was seen as very important to keep morale up with a constant stream of entertainments. Gone With The Wind was shown more or less continuously throughout the war, and I remember my nan saying she'd seen it more than a dozen times.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Rupert the Bear first appeared in 1920 and so was probably known to the Tolkien family, but in May 1937 The Dandy and The Beano could not be. The Dandy was first published later that year in December and The Beano was first published the following year. Something in May 1937 or before had made Tolkien think that there was a real danger of American childrens’ book illustrations being influenced by the Disney studios.

Disney films were also not included on North American networks, other than portions of them in some of Disney’s own programs: Disneyland (renamed later) and Micky Mouse Club, and on a few other later Disney programs. Disney, unlike other film production companies, refused to sell any television rights to his older films.

Dandy/Beano are examples of types of wildly popular cartoon/comic available in the UK. His children may have been too old by then (though his grandchildren will probably have picked them up later, along with the fantastic Eagle Comic), but there were plenty of other options that were popular. I can't remember the title but my dad, born in the 30s, collected a popular cartoon series at the time, he snipped them out of the Sunday paper and pasted them in a book so he could read them all at once.

There is also a long standing tradition of book illustration in the UK with a lot of highly lauded artists around in the late 19th and early 20th C that Tolkien will have been well aware of. Disney had a lot of competition in a country used to Kate Greenaway, Alfred Bestall, John Tenniel, Beatrix Potter, Randolph Caldecott, etc. And if you look at the art he produced and the art he liked for his own work (e.g. Pauline Baynes and her nice sketchy, inky drawings) then I'm not surprised he didn't go for Disney style which was all about large planes of colour and emphatic shapes - which works very well on screen but wasn't everyone's aesthetic (I can't personally complain about the modern Pixar stuff which is beautiful).

[Mithalwen]

Wasn't cinema going at it's peak in the UK during WW2? The war meant there was full employment and rationing meant that there wasn't much else to spend your money on. The cinemas also showed Newsreels as well as the features so it was information as well as entertainment, Even little towns like the one I live in had their own "flea pit".

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Dandy/Beano are examples of types of wildly popular cartoon/comic available in the UK. His children may have been too old by then (though his grandchildren will probably have picked them up later, along with the fantastic Eagle Comic), but there were plenty of other options that were popular. I can't remember the title but my dad, born in the 30s, collected a popular cartoon series at the time, he snipped them out of the Sunday paper and pasted them in a book so he could read them all at once.

I do not doubt that there were many comic strips before The Dandy and The Beano. Rupert the Bear dates to 1920. And there were doubtless some spin-off books based on such characters. The population of Canada is smaller than that of Britain and the UK, but even here there were books telling the adventures of Maggie Muggins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Muggins ), written by author Mary Grannan (http://w3.stu.ca/stu/sites/nble/g/grannan_mary.html ), though the series only aired, so far as I know, on CBC radio and later on CBC Television in Canada.

Sticking one’s favourite strips into a scrap book was also something I did as a child.

There is also a long standing tradition of book illustration in the UK with a lot of highly lauded artists around in the late 19th and early 20th C that Tolkien will have been well aware of. Disney had a lot of competition in a country used to Kate Greenaway, Alfred Bestall, John Tenniel, Beatrix Potter, Randolph Caldecott, etc.

Disney had competition if you must use that word in the US as well: Howard Pyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Pyle ), Andrew Wyeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wyeth ), Wanda Gág (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanda_G%C3%A1g ), W. W. Denslow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace_Denslow ), Kurt Wiese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wiese ), and so forth.

But nothing in American illustration that I am aware of fits with Tolkien’s fear of American children’s illustration being influenced by Disney, unless he had seen books incorporating Disney art and other art derived from American animated cartoons.

Further research shows that Whitman’s Giant Midget Books® line based on their North American Big Little books was founded in 1940, and so they also were likely not seen by Tolkien in 1937 or before. The customs of those days was that a U.S. publisher often partnered with a U.K. firm to publish the same book, as happened with The Hobbit. I find that some early Whitman books starring Mickey Mouse are also listed on the web as being published by Collins in London. See https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Mi...use%22+collins for some of these books on some of the pages listed.

As far as I can find almost all animated shorts in the early days of film animation were produced in the U.S., and none at all in Britain. So this would have created a demand in Britain for books based on the animated films seen, which Collins was able to fulfill thanks to Whitman. I do not know whether the Mickey Mouse daily strip was published in any British newspaper.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by jallanite

As far as I can find almost all animated shorts in the early days of film animation were produced in the U.S., and none at all in Britain. So this would have created a demand in Britain for books based on the animated films seen, which Collins was able to fulfill thanks to Whitman. I do not know whether the Mickey Mouse daily strip was published in any British newspaper.

I think it's most likely that Tolkien had seen Disney at the cinema. I don't know that any Disney books really took off here. I'm a bit fond of rooting through old children's books in second hand bookshops and I confess I've never seen any Disney ones older than ones from about the 50s or 60s. I also think that if Tolkien didn't like the art style then he's not that likely to have picked up the books for his children unless they pestered him - and apart from Priscilla (possibly) were probably too old to do that by this time?

What is the exact date of his first comment about Disney?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't know that any Disney books really took off here.

They did not take off in the States either, proof being that each book soon went out of print. Same as Britain. But they sold well enough that new ones kept being printed, same as Britain. Their sales market would have been the real fans, the same as the Doctor Who books currently (and formerly) being produced which likewise are mostly not reprinted, even within Britain.

I'm a bit fond of rooting through old children's books in second hand bookshops and I confess I've never seen any Disney ones older than ones from about the 50s or 60s.

The web shows that they existed. Ones older than the 50s would be expected to be rare. Ones from the 30s even rarer. No surprise there.

I also think that if Tolkien didn't like the art style then he's not that likely to have picked up the books for his children unless they pestered him - and apart from Priscilla (possibly) were probably too old to do that by this time?

Neither I nor anyone else here has ever suggested that Tolkien ever bought any of those books. What is your point in saying that something that no-one suggested ever happened didn’t happen? Of course Tolkien probably never bought a book illustrated in a style in loathed.

What is the exact date of his first comment about Disney?

As I’ve posted before the date on the letter is 13 May 1937. The letter is to C. A. Furth, Allen & Unwin. The comment is:

… as long as it is possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all of whose works I have a heartfelt loathing.)

The word works may cover various animated cartoons or may cover animated cartoons and books. That Disney is here connected by Tolkien with book illustration suggests to me that Tolkien had seen both cartoons and books and had loathed both. The books were published in Britain in the 30s. They existed in Britain.

Tolkien need only have spotted some of them at least once in a sale bin to have convinced him that American children’s book illustrators were sometimes influenced by Disney. In fact, so far as I know, the only American children’s books of the 30s that could be said to be “from or influenced by the Disney studios″ would be books containing material derived from the American cartoons or inspired by them. Tolkien might not know this.

I don’t find an early Disney animated eagle, but here are some early Disney owls: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4...ney%201931.jpg . Here are some cartoon eagles in general: https://www.google.ca/search?q=eagle...=u&source=univ , mostly much later from various sources. Imagine almost any of these used in the illustration “Bilbo Awoke with the Early Morning Sun in his Eyes” and it should be obvious what Tolkien feared. However eagles drawn in this style are unlikely to appear in any book, save funny (supposedly) comic books or a few with pictures that are intentionally in similar style.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Neither I nor anyone else here has ever suggested that Tolkien ever bought any of those books. What is your point in saying that something that no-one suggested ever happened didn’t happen? Of course Tolkien probably never bought a book illustrated in a style in loathed.

I don't know, you mentioned the books, I'm just pointing out that they must have been as rare as hens' teeth

And:

As I’ve posted before the date on the letter is 13 May 1937. The letter is to C. A. Furth, Allen & Unwin. The comment is:

… as long as it is possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all of whose works I have a heartfelt loathing.)

The word works may cover various animated cartoons or may cover animated cartoons and books. That Disney is here connected by Tolkien with book illustration suggests to me that Tolkien had seen both cartoons and books and had loathed both. The books were published in Britain in the 30s. They existed in Britain.

Tolkien need only have spotted some of them at least once in a sale bin to have convinced him that American children’s book illustrators were sometimes influenced by Disney. In fact, so far as I know, the only American children’s books of the 30s that could be said to be “from or influenced by the Disney studios″ would be books containing material derived from the American cartoons or inspired by them. Tolkien might not know this.

Yes, he might have seen some in a bookshop. It's still more likely that his main exposure to Disney was at the cinema. Apart from Priscilla, his kids were too old by 1937 to get kids' books - granted Priscilla might have enjoyed them, but they weren't common books, and you certainly wouldn't have got a 'sale bin' in a 1930s bookshop in Britain, as people could barely afford to buy food, let alone books. Cinema tickets were as cheap as (and possibly cheaper than) chips, though.

I'm just weighing up the likelihood of where he encountered Disney is all!

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't know, you mentioned the books, I'm just pointing out that they must have been as rare as hens' teeth.

See http://kayaozkaracalar3.blogspot.ca/ for a blog about Disney in Britain, largely covering material from the 30s. Disney books were not “as rare as hen’s teeth″ in Britain of the 30s but instead rather common.

Note the many items on the right-hand side of this blog, each of which lists still more Disney publications in Britain. Your belief in the rarity of Disney print publications in Britain of the 30s is only your own incorrect personal beliefs which are not born out by the facts.

Yes, he might have seen some in a bookshop. It's still more likely that his main exposure to Disney was at the cinema. Apart from Priscilla, his kids were too old by 1937 to get kids' books - granted Priscilla might have enjoyed them, but they weren't common books, …

Again see the Disneyville archives http://kayaozkaracalar3.blogspot.ca/...1_archive.html , and http://kayaozkaracalar3.blogspot.ca/...lications.html for the facts which refute your invention that the Disney books and weekly Disney newsletter were not reasonably common books in Britain in the 30s. See also the discussion of the British Mickey Mouse Weekly at http://www.mouseplanet.com/8365/The_...e_Weekly_Story which was first published in 1936 and ran until 1961. “Soon, the circulation of Mickey Mouse Weekly was 750,000 copies per week.”

Nothing posted by anyone but you even suggests that Tolkien ever bought any Disney books for Priscilla or anyone else. Why do you persist in this absurdity?

… and you certainly wouldn't have got a 'sale bin' in a 1930s bookshop in Britain, as people could barely afford to buy food, let alone books. Cinema tickets were as cheap as (and possibly cheaper than) chips, though.

Britain, then as now, had a large number of publishing companies, including George Allen & Unwin. Obviously their products were being sold. Mickey Mouse Weekly cost only 2 pennies per issue. Some people always are in the position of barely being able to buy food. That people in general in Britain could barely afford to buy food is a gross exaggeration. Yes cinema tickets were relatively cheap and it is quite probable that Tolkien’s first experience with Disney animation was in the cinema. My contention is that his fear that Disney influence was likely in American children’s book publication suggests that he knew that Disney material and similar material appeared in book form.

Evidence shows that he would have had numerous chances to be aware of Disney publications in book stores, if you just look for the evidence. As a would-be children’s book writer who had written The Hobbit, Mr. Bliss, and Roverandom Tolkien would be likely to be more interested in perusing children’s literature in bookstores than most adults, especially as Tolkien was not able to get Mr. Bliss and Roverandom published.

I'm just weighing up the likelihood of where he encountered Disney is all!

Nowhere have I found suggested anywhere in this thread before now that it was about “the likelihood of where he encountered Disney”. What I see is you and you alone claiming that Tolkien could not have encountered Disney from books because there weren’t any Disney books in Britain, or hardly any. That just isn’t true. You were mistaken. There were several publishers in Britain publishing Disney material in the 30s and presumably mostly making money from it as they continued to publish Disney material.

You seem to contend that Tolkien’s fear of influence by Disney on Amercan children’s book animation was almost solely paranoid fantasy. Arguing solely from likelihood, it seems to me very likely that Tolkien, as well as having seen Disney animation, had also seen at least some of the many, many Disney articles on sale in Britain at the time.

[davem]

Found this: http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home%2...hivesFeb10.htm

Interesting reference to a 1964 letter by JRRT himself:

...I recognize his talent, but it has always seemed to me hopelessly corrupted. Though in most of the 'pictures' proceding from his studios there are admirable or charming passages, the effect of all of them is to me disgusting. Some have given me nausea...

he also accuses Disney of being in his business practices "simply a cheat: willing and even eager to defraud the less experienced by trickery sufficiently 'legal' to keep him out of jail"; he adds that his own affairs are in the hands of Allen & Unwin ("a firm with the highest repute"); that he is "not innocent of the profit-motive" himself (although "I should not have given any proposal from Disney any consideration at all. I am not all that poor..."

And an equally interesting comment on Tolkien's original 1937 letter attacking 'Disneyfication':

The 1937 letter does seem more odd—I can only think that Tolkien was objecting to Disney's cartoon styling, which he would have seen as very crass as far as illustration was concerned. Although the Disney approach to source material (as was the general approach with Hollywood shorts) was to reduce the story to its simplest form, then develop the comic potential in the telling: this would have seemed unacceptable reductionism to Tolkien (and, I suspect, most authors!).

What I do wonder is whether the release of Snow White gave Tolkien any reason to doubt his previous stance. Whilst he would have still feared seeing his characters reduced to comic renditions of American personalities, like the dwarfs, the powerful dramatic possibilities that the feature revealed might have momentarily dented his resolve. However, the fact that Disney was never going to drop the humorous and sentimental elements, nor go beyond the American sensibilities of his audience (and himself) evidenced in the subsequent features would have soon reaffirmed his position.

I suspect its this kind of thing that may have shaped Tolkien's views on Disney (cue Walt's take on the tragedy of the Ents & the Entwives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTuIb7BIFqk )

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Note the many items on the right-hand side of this blog, each of which lists still more Disney publications in Britain. Your belief in the rarity of Disney print publications in Britain of the 30s is only your own incorrect personal beliefs which are not born out by the facts.

I spend a lot of time in second hand bookshops browsing children's books and I have never encountered any Disney books older than the 50s/60s. Yes, they existed, but the facts borne out by my own hours spent looking through kids' books do not bear out that they were that common. Yet you can still find a lot of old Rupert annuals etc from the period.

Nothing posted by anyone but you even suggests that Tolkien ever bought any Disney books for Priscilla or anyone else. Why do you persist in this absurdity?

Relax. It's my opinion. Of course I have known a lot of older British people (and still have the privilege of having two parents who lived through the 30s) and they all saw hours and hours of Disney cartoons at the cinema. Cinema was cheap fun and a primary source of news broadcasts, and everyone went there. And yes, millions of people were too poor to afford books and food (this is not the place to put you right on that point), but a visit to the flea pit provided an escape from the sheer misery that was life in 1930s Britain. Disney cartoons were so popular, they would even be shown at the interval during local theatre and musical productions, and at church events. We already know Tolkien wasn't a hermit and he'd have had many chances to see these cartoons that were everywhere as they were so popular.

Sorry, but I will persist that Tolkien's most likely exposure to Disney was from cinema. It's based on experience and knowledge of culture here. These books clearly weren't that popular, as borne out by the lack of them in the thousands of hours I've spent in second hand bookshops (and you can buy all kinds of raggedy old comics and chewed books from the first half of the 20th c so unless they have all been squirelled away they can't be that common). However, cinema going was something everyone did - going to see a mixed bag programme that would maybe have a film, some news, a couple of cartoons etc.

There's also the 1930s British book shopping experience to take into account. Bookshops weren't shops conducive to casual browsing, in common with most shops in the UK until the 1950s stock was mostly kept out of reach of 'casual browsers' and you would normally need to ask to view items. Books were expensive and most borrowed them from the public library. Browsing in the modern sense would only have happened in more casual shopping environments like markets or Woolworths (in fact Penguin paperbacks were first sold here). Tolkien's wife was more likely to have come into contact with the cheaper end of publishing doing her Saturday shopping (not something men ever got involved with); an Oxford bookshop would have been extremely unlikely to have ever lowered itself to stock comics, kids' books and paperbacks and the like.

In 1937 the place Tolkien is most likely to have seen Disney in print would be in the newspaper. I have access to the British Newspaper Archive and have been looking what's held there. Hype for Snow White in 1937 was all over, and some titles carried Mickey Mouse strips (just found one now in a 1930 edition of the Hull Daily Mail after a quick search of the British National Newspapers archive). There's also an item about one of the books in a 1934 Gloucestershire Echo - priced at 2s 6d, a whole day's pay, which might explain rarity. It's also recommended as a special gift item for children (which shows that it was regarded as expensive) - and it's always possible the two younger Tolkien children were given suchlike as special Christmas or birthday gifts by other relations in the 30s.

In 1964 T refers to Disney's 'pictures', which in the UK would always have meant his films. 'Pictures' is what British people called films until recently.

Nowhere have I found suggested anywhere in this thread before now that it was about “the likelihood of where he encountered Disney”. What I see is you and you alone claiming that Tolkien could not have encountered Disney from books because there weren’t any Disney books in Britain, or hardly any. That just isn’t true. You were mistaken.

You first mentioned Disney books. I disagree with you that they were of much importance in shaping Tolkien's opinion of Disney. Hey Ho. It's not going to go anywhere from hereonin so I'd suggest leaving it there.