Yahoo Forum Archive

> drawn equally on both sources the option of putting their
> stories in with
> the crossovers? Either that or by caveat declare that if a
> story uses any
> *plot* element of the films (rather than any *visual*
> element), it should be
> with the movieverse stories.

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:04:52 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Question concerning Dwim's list (Re: Tying Up
> Loose Ends--categorization form repost w/minor revision)
>
> There are a lot of stories that draw on the visual elements
> of the film
> without it changing the plotline of the books particularly --
> all those
> relentlessly blue eyed Frodos owe a debt to PJ anyway, even if they're
> meeting the Barrow Wight. But maybe it's just me: I feel like I've
> seen more than one story which tries to reconcile the book and the
> movieverses. Perhaps we could offer writers who really feel
> that they've
> drawn equally on both sources the option of putting their
> stories in with
> the crossovers? Either that or by caveat declare that if a
> story uses any
> *plot* element of the films (rather than any *visual*
> element), it should be
> with the movieverse stories.
>
> On 11/29/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 29 Nov 2005, at 11:05, dwimmer_laik wrote:
> >
> > > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "elanor of aquitania"
> <elanor@c...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My story is:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Bookverse: based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and/or
> > > drafts
> > > > > made available by C. Tolkien
> > > > > 2. Filmverse: based on a film adaptation of "The Lord of the
> > > Rings" or
> > > > > "The Hobbit"
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > quickly delurking after reading that in digest
> > > > (sorry if this problem is already solved):
> > > >
> > > > what, if the story uses both verses, some sequences
> only appearing
> > > in the
> > > > book
> > > > and some scenes only appearing in the movies?
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes Elanor
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd say make a decision--which scenes are more
> important? Is the aim
> > > to highlight and enrich the movie scenes, or are the movie scenes
> > > supporting a mostly bookverse story? We can change the
> wording to say
> > > "My story is *primarily* based on..."
> > >
> > > I'm reluctant to add "Both" as a category because I've
> not seen many
> > > book/movie blends that specifically aimed to be blends;
> most seemed to
> > > be playing to the movies and using bookverse scenes
> where the movie
> > > lacked them. I've read only a few stories that took a
> moment or two
> > > from the movie and integrated them into a bookverse
> story, but those
> > > were such minor moments for the most part that it'd be
> silly to say
> > > the story was movieverse. It made more sense to give a
> heads up in the
> > > author's notes and then leave it at that.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have any strong feelings about this, so whatever
> people want.
> > My main concern is that people who write movieverse often
> don't think
> > to warm about it in their summaries. While I think they
> should do this,
> > I don't want to deal with people thinking they got less or shorter
> > reviews because their story was movieverse and they didn't
> warn for it.
> > (And this is quite possibly old emotional baggage from when I was a
> > HASA admin.)
> >
> > Just to cover our basis, how about a warning like:
> >
> > My story is...
> >
> > ___ 1. Bookverse: based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien
> and/or drafts
> > made available by C. Tolkien
> > ___ 2. Filmverse: based on a film adaptation of "The Lord
> of the Rings"
> > or "The Hobbit"
> >
> > (Remember, if your story is primarily bookverse but
> contains elements
> > unique to the films, you may want to mention this in your summary or
> > authors' notes so you don't catch your readers by surprise.)
> >
> > Marta
> >
> >
> > *****
> > "Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our
> greatest fear is
> > that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not
> our darkness
> > that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
> > unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."
> >
> > (Nelson Mandela)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > - Visit your group
> "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> > on the web.
> >
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@ya

> >
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
>

>
> rabidsamfan wrote Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:04:52 -0500:
> > drawn equally on both sources the option of putting their
> > stories in with
> > the crossovers? Either that or by caveat declare that if a
> > story uses any
> > *plot* element of the films (rather than any *visual*
> > element), it should be
> > with the movieverse stories.
>
> Hi Rabidsamfan,
>
> IMO both solutions are too strong.
>
> 1) I thought cross-overs were for the mixing of
> other movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean" with Tolkien's universe.
> IMO the movie by PJ is a story working with
> elements of Tolkien's Universe, which becomes
> towards the third part more and more AU.
>
> 2) IMO the solution that 'any *plot* element' suffices to shove
> the story into movie-verse is also too strong a measure.
>
> My question is a result of one of my own stories
> where I use PJ's pyre scene to shorten the story line
> which else is completely book-verse.
>
> I would go with caveats in the summary
> and I would like to change Dwim's text to
> something like
>
> ###########
> My story is:
>
> 1. Bookverse: *predominantly* based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien
> and/or
> drafts made available by C. Tolkien
>
> 2. Filmverse: *predominantly* based on a film adaptation of "The Lord of
> the
> Rings" or "The Hobbit"
> ###########
>
> Best wishes Elanor

On 12/1/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi RSF,
>
> I have to admit, the whole concept of a bookverse/movieverse hybrid
> seems a bit foreign to me. If a story is bookverse, that means that on
> all the points where the books differ from the movies, it follows the
> books. If I write a story about Faramir's thoughts just before he rides
> out to re-take Osgiliath, that story is movieverse by default - even if
> I have Faramir reflecting on things that are never mentioned in the
> movies, like Faramir's having the dream that sent Boromir to Osgiliath.
> The movies are pretty limited in their scope, especially when it comes
> to backstory.
>
> As for why not have the possibility of marking both, there's a simple
> logistical one. This year we had the "Movieverse" category as a choice.
> It was in Genres, but most people want to move it to Times from what
> I've seen. I certainly think it fits better there. But how would
> someone put their story in movieverse using Dwim's form? The way I
> interpret it, if you choose "based on the movies", your story gets
> "Movie-verse" as its "Times" category choice. If you choose "based on
> the books" it gets the time-period you chose as its Time choice.
> Therefore it's important that the author only choose one choice.
>
> If we don't want to do this, I guess we don't need a movieverse
> category, and I don't have a strong objection from an administrative
> viewpoint. I still think the concept of a hybrid doesn't make a lot of
> sense as I understand the term "bookverse" and "movieverse". But I'll
> go with whatever people want.
>
> Marta
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
>
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> <snip>
> An evil little braincell in the back of my head just wondered whether
> or not we'd count a story with Bingo Baggins and Trotter as alternate
> universe...

>> I have to admit, the whole concept of a bookverse/movieverse hybrid
>> seems a bit foreign to me. If a story is bookverse, that means that
>> on all the points where the books differ from the movies, it
>> follows the books. If I write a story about Faramir's thoughts just
>> before he rides out to re-take Osgiliath, that story is movieverse
>> by default - even if I have Faramir reflecting on things that are
>> never mentioned in the movies, like Faramir's having the dream that
>> sent Boromir to Osgiliath. The movies are pretty limited in their
>> scope, especially when it comes to backstory.

>-- Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have to admit, the whole concept of a bookverse/movieverse hybrid
>>> seems a bit foreign to me. If a story is bookverse, that means that
>>> on all the points where the books differ from the movies, it
>>> follows the books. If I write a story about Faramir's thoughts just
>>> before he rides out to re-take Osgiliath, that story is movieverse
>>> by default - even if I have Faramir reflecting on things that are
>>> never mentioned in the movies, like Faramir's having the dream that
>>> sent Boromir to Osgiliath. The movies are pretty limited in their
>>> scope, especially when it comes to backstory.
>
>I've been wondering about this hybrid concept, and I *can* think of a few examples that might fall under such a category. There's one story out there in which the Lothlorien elves never showed up at Helm's Deep and Haldir never died. He has a fairly big role in the story, and on that count, it's a bookverse story. However, a lot of the lines and a lot of the flashbacks come straight out of the movies and don't have much to do with the books at all. The author did something of a pick-and-choose job, using elements from both the books and the movies until she got something that worked. But even so, I think with a bit of prodding it could be narrowed down into a bookverse or a movieverse category.
>
>The other examples would are all parodies that use movies and books against each other, and I can think of quite a few of those. But by and large, they're probably going in the humor section rather than in a time category or a movieverse category.
>
>Anyway, just wanted to point out that there are a few stories out there that try to blend movies and books. And there are a few that try to reconcile movies and books. My opinion is that all of them (at least, all of the stories I've read) can fit into bookverse or movieverse with a bit of wrangling. I don't see an overwhelming need for a hybrid option. But that's just my opinion.
>
>Thundera
>
>~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>--Okay, I'll make a deal with you: If we go out
>   on patrol and Gotham is quiet with no sign of
>   the Joker, we come back here, have Christmas
>   dinner, and watch “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
>--You know, I’ve never seen that. I could never
>   get past the title.
>
>Robin and Batman - Batman: The Animated Series
>~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

>>> I have to admit, the whole concept of a bookverse/movieverse hybrid
>>> seems a bit foreign to me. If a story is bookverse, that means that
>>> on all the points where the books differ from the movies, it
>>> follows the books. If I write a story about Faramir's thoughts just
>>> before he rides out to re-take Osgiliath, that story is movieverse
>>> by default - even if I have Faramir reflecting on things that are
>>> never mentioned in the movies, like Faramir's having the dream that
>>> sent Boromir to Osgiliath. The movies are pretty limited in their
>>> scope, especially when it comes to backstory.
>
> I've been wondering about this hybrid concept, and I *can* think of a
> few examples that might fall under such a category. There's one story
> out there in which the Lothlorien elves never showed up at Helm's Deep
> and Haldir never died. He has a fairly big role in the story, and on
> that count, it's a bookverse story. However, a lot of the lines and a
> lot of the flashbacks come straight out of the movies and don't have
> much to do with the books at all. The author did something of a
> pick-and-choose job, using elements from both the books and the movies
> until she got something that worked. But even so, I think with a bit
> of prodding it could be narrowed down into a bookverse or a movieverse
> category.
>

> It might not matter, actually.  I keep trying to think of specific
> examples,
> but this hasn't been a good week for brain cells.  Still as long as
> we leave
> an opening for authors to let the liaisons know when they feel that
> the
> options we've given (in whatever area) don't quite fit the way they
> see
> their stories, it should be sufficient to show us if there is a topic
> where
> our planning hasn't matched the expectations of others.  One of the
> strengths of the MEFAs is inclusivity, and asking people what they
> think, as
> this discussion certainly proves.
>

On 12/2/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The main problem I have with giving people the option to choose both is
> the problem with sorting stories into a "movieverse" category. If we
> can do that some other way, I don't mind having this option - I'm not
> particularly for it, I just don't have strong feelings.
>
> Marta
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 2 Dec 2005, at 22:50, rabidsamfan wrote:

> If every author agrees that their story is one or the other it's no
> biggie,
> but I think it's possible that some authors will balk at having to
> choose to
> cram what they've written one direction or the other.  And since
> we're using
> source information to group similar stories together there's room for
> some
> flexibility. 

This is why I suggested framing the question differently: is the story
movieverse or not? If the author thinks there's enough movieverse in it
for it to compete with movieverse stories, they select yes, even if
there's a fair bit of bookverse in there as well. We could phrase it as
something like "Is your story based on some adaptation of Tolkien's
work like the movies made by Jackson or Bakshi. Select "yes" even if
your story also draws from Tolkien's books if you would like it to
compete with other movieverse stories. If you do not want it to compete
in a movieverse category [or sub-category, whatever we go with], please
select "Decline to answer" and mention that it draws from the movies in
your summary."

My concern with giving people a book/movie/splice option is that the
splice stories won't go in with the movieverse categories even if the
author might put it there. I had a story entered in this year's
movieverse category ("Fell Deeds, Awake") that had Gimli at Helm's Deep
comparing Theoden to Bard. It was movieverse because Gimli was the one
who blew Helm Hammerhand's horn, and I still think that was the right
category for it -- but if I had the option of marking it as a
combination of bookverse and movieverse, I probably would have chosen a
blend. I don't want that to happen to other people this year.

Just my thoughts, of course. If most people want to accommodate splices
this way I won't fight it. Would people like a poll on this?

Marta

>
> See, I'd call that a blend right off the bat, as Bard is drawn

> the books and Gimli blowing the horn is definitely from the film,

> story is doing its best to bind those two things into a single

>
> Part of the problem, I guess, is that I don't ask that question

> it is the first question on Dwim's form.
>
> To quote:
>
> [My story is:
>
> 1. Bookverse: based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and/or drafts
> made available by C. Tolkien
> 2. Filmverse: based on a film adaptation of "The Lord of the

> "The Hobbit"...]
>
> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from

> or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales. If I were better acquainted

> Silmarillion, I'd definitely include that in my thinking, but

> of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (and in their "most

> at that) as being the basic canon of the Bookverse.

> Hmm. I can see that what I really need to do is
> explain how I would do it if I were in charge of the universe.
>
> Okay. Might take me a day or so, depending on the insomnia. I'll

> up Dwim's most current form of the form and see if I can make a

> contribution.

On 12/3/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@v...>
> wrote:
> >
> > See, I'd call that a blend right off the bat, as Bard is drawn
> strictly from
> > the books and Gimli blowing the horn is definitely from the film,
> and the
> > story is doing its best to bind those two things into a single
> whole.
> >
> > Part of the problem, I guess, is that I don't ask that question
> first. And
> > it is the first question on Dwim's form.
> >
> > To quote:
> >
> > [My story is:
> >
> > 1. Bookverse: based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and/or drafts
> > made available by C. Tolkien
> > 2. Filmverse: based on a film adaptation of "The Lord of the
> Rings" or
> > "The Hobbit"...]
> >
> > Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from
> Tolkien's letters
> > or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales. If I were better acquainted
> with the
> > Silmarillion, I'd definitely include that in my thinking, but
> mostly I think
> > of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (and in their "most
> corrected" form,
> > at that) as being the basic canon of the Bookverse.
>
> Ok, let's start again.
>
> The "Bookverse/Movieverse" option, the way I have it, is intended to
> talk about which source material you're using for your story.
>
> Now, given that absolutely uninflected, stripped down sentence, I am
> not consistent in requiring an author to choose between them if said
> author has used both books and movies.
>
> However, the work that that filter *can* do is to show us which fics
> should be moved into the movieverse category on the grounds that a
> movieverse story has a different set of canonical events governing
> it.
>
> A third layer of interpretation is taking each fic according to what
> appears as the author's intention: is the author attempting to say
> something about the movieverse events, even if by drawing
> significantly on bookverse events/personalities (this is what I
> would understand Marta's fic to be doing) or is it attempting to say
> something about bookverse events/personalities, even if by
> incorporating movieverse elements that seem to point in certain
> directions? Here, I don't think it makes sense to have a "blend"
> option.
>
> Given that, the problem point is going to be deciding what the
> function of the filter is. Do we want to use it to mark out stories
> that probably should go into a category on their own? Or do we want
> it to function just to let readers know what source material they
> may need in order to make sense of the story? If the latter, we have
> to find another place to put movieverse as a category or decide if
> we want that to be a category (I personally would go with a
> movieverse category provided it meets the 2x5 viability criterion);
> we have to make sure that those filling in the form understand it's
> not redundant as a question.
>
> If the former, then *if* we added "blend" we would have to define
> what it is that "blend" is trying to do that clearly separates it
> from "movieverse" and "bookverse", which I'm not convinced we've
> done, at least not on any basis other than "I just happen to use two
> different sources". If we fail to do that, then I think there's too
> little to give readers a sense of why this is a category, and it may
> end up being a sort of catch-all with no clear sense of cohesion.
> Granted, with big categories like "Drama" there's also that danger,
> but I think people have a better sense of what "dramatic" means and
> can see more or less why it makes sense, *given the aim of the
> story*, to put it in drama (or Elves, or post-Ring War, etc.).
>
> > Hmm. I can see that what I really need to do is
> > explain how I would do it if I were in charge of the universe.
> >
> > Okay. Might take me a day or so, depending on the insomnia. I'll
> go hunt
> > up Dwim's most current form of the form and see if I can make a
> coherent
> > contribution.
>
> I'm at work, so I can't access the form at home on my computer,
> which has changed slightly due to Kathy's pointing out some errors
> and oversights. I think I'll post the form in the YahooGroup's site
> Files when I get a chance, and then update it when needed. That
> should make it easier to find for everyone than if they have to hunt
> through pages of posts.
>
> Dwim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+a+book+report&w5=Creative+writing+book&w6=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=CJ9-GUUZOlmjU1HkIfWNbw> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+a+book+report&w5=Creative+writing+book&w6=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=jt8M3UK2ZlBib32GUdbxfA> Book
> writing software<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+a+book+report&w5=Creative+writing+book&w6=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=Vl0k5MpY8hh3gnS7xbDtQQ> Writing
> a book report<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+a+book+report&w5=Creative+writing+book&w6=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=fYdtZdt6-p_5pQv59n0rdg> Creative
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+a+book+report&w5=Creative+writing+book&w6=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=rWI3CFNk5a9-aA5EiFHQkQ> Writing
> and publishing a book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+a+book+report&w5=Creative+writing+book&w6=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=OAKaBn2Haziz3vuypwp8Vw>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
>
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> You mentioned "the aim of the story" and that's precisely why I

> authors the option to call something a blend. It's intention that

> here as much as any definition. There's probably a better word

> -- a chimera, perhaps? Defined as a story which intentionally

> elements from two or more disparate sources and attempts to

>

> As far as readers finding things, hmmm. perhaps we could include

> answers the authors gave us in the story information page.

>
> Yeah, it'll probably take a poll...

> See, I'd call that a blend right off the bat, as Bard is drawn
> strictly from
> the books and Gimli blowing the horn is definitely from the film, and
> the
> story is doing its best to bind those two things into a single
> whole.   You,
> I gather, feel that any hint of the films moves the story into the
> movieverse, and even want authors to mention if there are moviebits in
> summaries, almost like a warning for unpleasant topics or character
> deaths.
>

>
> Part of the problem, I guess, is that I don't ask that question
> first.  An
> it is the first question on Dwim's form.
>
> To quote:
>
> [My story is:
>
> 1. Bookverse: based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and/or drafts
> made available by C. Tolkien
> 2. Filmverse: based on a film adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" or
> "The Hobbit"...]
>
> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from Tolkien's
> letters
> or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales.  If I were better acquainted with
> the
> Silmarillion, I'd definitely include that in my thinking, but mostly
> I think
> of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (and in their "most
> corrected" form,
> at that) as being the basic canon of the Bookverse.
>
> HoME, the Letters, etc., are in my noggin as "drafts and background
> material".
>

> So what if we skip that question for now, and save it for later.  Now
> we
> have two primary questions on the form (and again, they're not in the
> form
> I'd divide things.)...   Hmm.  I can see that what I really need to
> do is
> explain how I would do it if I were in charge of the universe.
>
> Okay.  Might take me a day or so, depending on the insomnia.  I'll go
> hunt
> up Dwim's most current form of the form and see if I can make a
> coherent
> contribution.  Not that I expect it to be used, mind you, but so you
> can see
> how I'm thinking.
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:

Okay, I've been trying to follow this conversation the past days, but
I am not sure if I understand completely why this is brought up for
discussion.. It might have been the flu though ;)

> So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
> differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse and I
> see an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of
> it as an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per
> se, I just want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate
> having this material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as
> much as anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story
> will probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I
> had fair expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point
> and a 10 point review.

Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author does thorough book
research, but you (as a reader) think it is a movie thing (maybe
because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more into the books than you
assumed). What then? I think you need to be aware of this as well. We
all can't know every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we
all miss things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...

> For the purpose of categorisation, I'm less sure. I think the first
> question we need to answer is whether movieverse stories should be
> their own category, and if so why. If we answer that I think it will
> be a lot easier to see what to do with blends.

Well, this is something I have a hard time understanding currently...
I mean didn't we had a movieverse category? And didn't it work quite well?

>> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from
>> Tolkien's letters or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales. If I were
>> better acquainted with the Silmarillion, I'd definitely include
>> that in my thinking, but mostly I think of The Hobbit and The Lord
>> of the Rings (and in their "most corrected" form,at that) as being
>> the basic canon of the Bookverse.
>>
>> HoME, the Letters, etc., are in my noggin as "drafts and
>> background material".
>
> Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
> drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
> controversy, because while the details might be different, the
> *medium* is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in
> choosing the details. Even if they weren't finished.

Well the thing is here, especially with HOME is that Tolkien drafted
so many versions of one event, that it is quite often contradicting.
It is a great source for plotbunnies though, but I can imagine that
when someone explores a HOME thing that covers an event in the
Silmarillion that is contradicting... that would be very interesting
to see how you guys want to see that as categorisation because
technically: it isn't AU, you can quote canon on that.

> And Rabidsamfan, at the risk of dividing the fandom into factions...
> you write mostly hobbit fic, right? While there is certainly
> information about hobbits in the Letters and HOME, but I think that
> most of the *events* at least are set out in LOTR and TH. I honestly
> can't imagine writing Gondor without knowing a lot more about the
> history of Numenor than we see in the appendices. This is even more
> true for the elves; I personally think the most interesting part
> about them are the allusions to the "deeper matters" that are only
> told in full in the Silm, or UT. In my mind, if it doesn't
> contradict the published books it's fair game.

Even the URT contains contradicting material... just don't try to dive
too much into exploring Celeborn for example... it gave drive you
insane ;) And I am not starting about LACE, which is never ever
mentioned in the Silmarillion to begin with.

*dives for cover*

Rhapsody

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta Layton" <melayton@gmail.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Movie-verse versus Bookverse (Re: Question
concerning Dwim's list)


So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse and I see
an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of it as
an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per se, I just
want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate having this
material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as much as
anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story will
probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I had fair
expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point and a 10
point review.

::Now, I have to say, I write what I think of as essentially book-verse
stories. Yet I often draw on visual elements and bits of characterizations
that were inspired by the films, as long as they don't contradict the book.
For example, JRRT never tells us the color of Frodo's or Pippin's eyes--so I
don't feel there's anything amiss in using the color of the actors who
played them. And we are certainly never given a description of the hobbits'
articles of dress, so mentioning Merry's yellow weskit or Pippin's scarf
would certainly not fall into putting the story in movie-verse, to me.
On the other hand, sometimes people read into a story something that's not
there. In my very first story, I had a less than flattering protrayal of
Denethor, my own interpretation of his character for over 30 years, from the
time I read the book the first time. Yet I had a reviewer who assumed I was
writing "movie-verser Denethor".
So I would say that a definition of "movie-verse" or "book-verse" is very
subjective, and rightfully left to the author to decide.

For the purpose of categorisation, I'm less sure. I think the first
question we need to answer is whether movieverse stories should be
their own category, and if so why. If we answer that I think it will be
a lot easier to see what to do with blends.

::We had a movie-verse category, or was it sub-category? last year, and I
think it seemed to work all right. I am afraid I would put this whole
question to the old "if it ain't broke..." question.

> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from Tolkien's
> letters
> or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales. If I were better acquainted with
> the
> Silmarillion, I'd definitely include that in my thinking, but mostly
> I think
> of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (and in their "most
> corrected" form,
> at that) as being the basic canon of the Bookverse.
>
> HoME, the Letters, etc., are in my noggin as "drafts and background
> material".
>

Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
controversy, because while the details might be different, the *medium*
is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in choosing the
details. Even if they weren't finished.

::I fall somewhere in between. I think of The Silm as more or less canon to
the events which take place during those years. I think of UT and Letters
as "semi-canon"--useful for factoids that are not included in the finished
works, and then I think of the rest as "quasi-canon", again useful for
certain factoids, but not quite so much so, as the aforementioned works.
All of them are to be treated with a certain amount of respect as revealing
some of JRRT's own mind on certain matters, but I don't see them as "canon",
except for The Silm.


And Rabidsamfan, at the risk of dividing the fandom into factions...
you write mostly hobbit fic, right? While there is certainly
information about hobbits in the Letters and HOME, but I think that
most of the *events* at least are set out in LOTR and TH. I honestly
can't imagine writing Gondor without knowing a lot more about the
history of Numenor than we see in the appendices. This is even more
true for the elves; I personally think the most interesting part about
them are the allusions to the "deeper matters" that are only told in
full in the Silm, or UT. In my mind, if it doesn't contradict the
published books it's fair game.

That's just my personal opinion, though. The main reason I'm allowing
C. Tolkien's stuff is it side-steps a controversy on what just is
canon. People have been arguing over that for decades, and I doubt
we'll settle them in a manner that everyone will agree with.

::You are quite right in noting that we hobbit writers have a lot more
published material to draw on. There's nothing wrong or divisive in
pointing that out.
Your statement in saying "if it doesn't contradict the published books it's
fair game" is interesting, however, in the light of what you had to say
about seeing movie-verse elements in a book-verse story. 8-)

::At any rate, I do think that the question of movie-verse versus book-verse
as a category is being made more important than it really needs to be. It
should be a question on the form, but like RSF, I don't think it needs to be
the first one, or even a main one. It's just a small part of what needs to
be decided. And the author can make that call.

::My two cents.
Dreamflower

> So what if we skip that question for now, and save it for later. Now
> we
> have two primary questions on the form (and again, they're not in the
> form
> I'd divide things.)... Hmm. I can see that what I really need to
> do is
> explain how I would do it if I were in charge of the universe.
>
> Okay. Might take me a day or so, depending on the insomnia. I'll go
> hunt
> up Dwim's most current form of the form and see if I can make a
> coherent
> contribution. Not that I expect it to be used, mind you, but so you
> can see
> how I'm thinking.
>

By all means! I've thrown out my opinion, and I look forward to seeing
how you'd handle these questions. And whenever you have the time to ldo
that, of course.

Marta





Yahoo! Groups Links

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> Okay, I've been trying to follow this conversation the past days, but
> I am not sure if I understand completely why this is brought up for
> discussion.. It might have been the flu though ;)
>
> > So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
> > differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse and I
> > see an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of
> > it as an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per
> > se, I just want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate
> > having this material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as
> > much as anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story
> > will probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I
> > had fair expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point
> > and a 10 point review.
>
> Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author does thorough book
> research, but you (as a reader) think it is a movie thing (maybe
> because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more into the books than you
> assumed). What then?

> all can't know every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we
> all miss things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...

> > Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
> > drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
> > controversy, because while the details might be different, the
> > *medium* is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in
> > choosing the details. Even if they weren't finished.
>
> Well the thing is here, especially with HOME is that Tolkien drafted
> so many versions of one event, that it is quite often contradicting.
> It is a great source for plotbunnies though, but I can imagine that
> when someone explores a HOME thing that covers an event in the
> Silmarillion that is contradicting... that would be very interesting
> to see how you guys want to see that as categorisation because
> technically: it isn't AU, you can quote canon on that.

>
> Even the URT contains contradicting material... just don't try to dive
> too much into exploring Celeborn for example... it gave drive you
> insane ;) And I am not starting about LACE, which is never ever
> mentioned in the Silmarillion to begin with.

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "rhapsody_the_bard"
> <rhapsody74@g...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> >>wrote:
> >
>> Okay, I've been trying to follow this conversation the past days,
>> but I am not sure if I understand completely why this is brought up
>> for discussion.. It might have been the flu though ;)
>>
>>> So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
>>> differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse and I
>>> see an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think
>>> of it as an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces
>>> per se, I just want to expect it. So for me as reader, I
>>> appreciate having this material labelled. And this is for the
>>> authors' good as much as anything else. My reading of an
>>> unlabelled movieverse story will probably be less forgiving than
>>> my reading of one for which I had fair expectations. It might be
>>> the difference between an 8 point and a 10 point review.
>>
>> Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author does thorough book
>> research, but you (as a reader) think it is a movie thing (maybe
>> because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more into the books than
>> you assumed). What then?
>
> Can you cite an example where this is the case? I'm not sure what
> you're talking about here, other than a purely hypothetical
> scenario.

> Having done the research does not guarantee a good
> interpretation, it just makes it less likely to be bad.

>
>> I think you need to be aware of this as well. We all can't know

>> things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...
>
> You say "form our own idea about it" like this is both a bad thing
> and an avoidable thing.

> Nothing literary is read about which one forms onnly the idea that
> the author had of it. Yes, there are bad interpretations, but a good
> interpretation is still an interpretation and constitutes "my own
> idea about it." In the case you mention, it's going to be in the
> author's benefit where I'm concerned to give me reasons to think
> s/he is basing his/her work on the movieverse. If not, I'm going to
> think it's a bad bookverse interpretation, just as I think PJ's
> screen adaptation of Denethor is a bad interpretation, though not
> necessarily an unresearched one.

>
> <snip>

> > It is a great source for plotbunnies though, but I can imagine
> > that when someone explores a HOME thing that covers an event in
> < the Silmarillion that is contradicting... that would be very
> >interesting to see how you guys want to see that as categorisation
> > because technically: it isn't AU, you can quote canon on that.
>
> You seem to be treating this one filter as if everything depended on
> it. I recommend checking the example form I filled out for a Trotter
> and Bingo story. You can say "My story is bookverse" and still
> choose *AU* as a category if it's based on material that ws clearly
> discarded by Tolkien, or depending on how you view underused
> sections of the drafts (LACE) in their relation to other drafts (The
> Silm is *also* not work JRRT approved or finished--it is heavily
> edited by C.Tolkien and Gavriel, iirc--so Silm as canon is itself a
> fan creation, inaugurated by the need to have some point of
> reference that was relatively stable for the pre-Third Age stories,
> that acknowledged that Tolkien had done some work there so it wasn't
> a free for all).

> you can do that, and say in your author's notes or summary, "I'm
> relying on material from HoME that Tolkien discarded." The forms can
> accommodate this level of sophistication--I think the concern, that
> including the drafts as bookverse is misleading, is not taking into
> account the full range of data and the manipulability of that data
> that the form demands and can support.

> <snip>
>>
>> Even the UT contains contradicting material... just don't try to
>> dive too much into exploring Celeborn for example... it gave drive
>> you insane ;) And I am not starting about LACE, which is never ever
>> mentioned in the Silmarillion to begin with.
>
> See above, especially the point about the Silm, which to me says a
> lot to me about your conception of canon--it's still not complex
> enough despite the objections you're trying to bring to bear on
> behalf of that very point.

> We are *all* going to make assumptions, we cn't help it. It's how
> those assumptions are used in crafting the story so tht it is
> convincing based on the most reasonable conception of canon
> (itself a position one can argue for and should) you can find for
> your story.

> Maybe it's because I hang out at HASA normally, but this is the
> standard we use. If it's citable, it's fair game--you don't get to
> dock the person just because s/he used some obscure, discarded
> portion of Tolkien's drafts. But just because it's *citable* doesn't
> make it a good story yet--our conception of canon *is* complex
> because the interrelations of JRRT's writings is complex and
> ultimately in some cases 'undecidable'; it is therefore not enough
> to just point to the source material. If you use something clearly
> discarded (Trotter, for example), be prepared to make your case for
> why this story needs to be written--do it not by the footnotes
> (which still need to be there so the reader can find out what's
> given in the draft(s) you're working with), but by telling me a good
> story. That's the bottom line.

> Right now, possibly because I, too, have caught the dreaded disease
> of the month, I'm not able to see what you're talking about in your
> objections very clearly--not in a concrete way that convinces me
> this is more than a set of exceptional cases (w.r.t. the 'what if it
> really is bookverse and you only think it's movieverse' position at
> least). I need concrete stuff! My head is too filled with goop for
> anything less to enter it, unfortunately. :-S

> Okay, I've been trying to follow this conversation the past days, but
> I am not sure if I understand completely why this is brought up for
> discussion.. It might have been the flu though ;)
>

> > So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
> > differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse  and I
> > see an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of
> > it as an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per
> > se, I just want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate
> > having this material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as
> > much as anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story
> > will probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I
> > had fair expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point
> >  and a 10 point review.
>
> Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author does thorough book
> research, but you (as a reader) think it is a movie thing (maybe
> because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more into the books than you
> assumed). What then? I think you need to be aware of this as well. We
> all can't know every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we
> all miss things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...
>

> > For the purpose of categorisation, I'm less sure. I think the first
> > question we need to answer is whether movieverse stories should be
> > their own category, and if so why. If we answer that I think it will
> > be a lot easier to see what to do with blends.
>
> Well, this is something I have a hard time understanding currently...
> I mean didn't we had a movieverse category? And didn't it work quite
> well?
>

> >> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from
> >> Tolkien's letters or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales.  If I were
> >> better acquainted with the Silmarillion, I'd definitely include
> >> that in my thinking, but mostly I think of The Hobbit and The Lord
> >> of the Rings (and in their "most corrected" form,at that) as being
> >> the basic canon of the Bookverse.
> >>
> >>  HoME, the Letters, etc., are in my noggin as "drafts and
> >> background material".
> >
> > Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
> > drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
> > controversy, because while the details might be different, the
> > *medium* is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in
> > choosing the details. Even if they weren't finished.
>
> Well the thing is here, especially with HOME is that Tolkien drafted
> so many versions of one event, that it is quite often contradicting.
> It is a great source for plotbunnies though, but I can imagine that
> when someone explores a HOME thing that covers an event in the
> Silmarillion that is contradicting... that would be very interesting
> to see how you guys want to see that as categorisation because
> technically: it isn't AU, you can quote canon on that.
>

> > Well I am just recovering from it (the dreaded

> asking basically *why* this is discussed because I

> the reasoning why.

> To me the main category movieverse worked
> brilliantly and I am wondering why movieverse is up

> See above: I do clearly ask for clarification

> follow the discussion. It feels like many things are

> and it's highly confusing (especially when your mind

> > you can do that, and say in your author's notes or

> > relying on material from HoME that Tolkien

> > accommodate this level of sophistication--I think

> > including the drafts as bookverse is misleading,

> > account the full range of data and the

> > that the form demands and can support.

> > I am not following this. How can a story based on

> misleading? I most certainly misread this, can you

> more clearly?

> stories that have a main plot element derived from
> HOME in the AU... with this reasoning?

> >> > >> Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author

> >> research, but you (as a reader) think it is a

> >> because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more

> >> you assumed). What then?

> > > > Can you cite an example where this is the case?

> > you're talking about here, other than a purely

> > scenario.

> > How about the scene where Isildur, Elendil and

> Sauron... well in the movie you don't see Gil-Galad

> much, so what if the story appears to be a

> how Elendil fought Sauron (besides the whole

> happened there and what/who brought Sauron down on

> reader can form an image in his/her head that it is

> the author in question might have thoroughly

>For example, I might

> Boromir (with some good citations to back it up),

> and she doesn't agree with my intepretation of

> rewarded with 2 points less then?

> If one disagrees with the characterization PJ used, that's a more
> subtle point, usually, and much more open to the "PJ did more research
> than you think" objection.
>
> <snip>
> So let's say someone characterizes Denethor as a right bastard who's
> unfit to rule in every important way, and I think to myself, "Gee, PJ
> did that too. This is a movieverse story, not a bookverse one." If I
> think that's not a great thing, but I think it's someone adhereing to
> the movieverse, I'm going to give that person points for working with
> flawed source material as best they can, but whether bookverse or
> movieverse, my review will be relatively short, because I just don't
> think that in *any* universe, that's a good characterization and so I
> won't enjoy the story as much.

> Well, you guys who know me know that I would fall on the side of being
> (vocally) critical of this characterisation of Denethor. But as much as
> I hate to admit it, there are some events in the books that could lead
> someone to a similar characterisation if interpreted a certain way.

> You're right, characterisation is more open to interpretation. Either
> the Elves did or didn't show up at Helm's Deep, and either Saruman did
> or did not occupy the Shire, and so on. it might happen differently in
> the books and in the movies, but there's no arguing that in the books
> Haldir died at Helm's Deep.

>
>
> > Well, you guys who know me know that I would fall on the side of

> > (vocally) critical of this characterisation of Denethor. But as

> > I hate to admit it, there are some events in the books that could

> > someone to a similar characterisation if interpreted a certain way.
>
> Hence the qualifier, "Unfit to rule in *every* respect"

> > Having done the research does not guarantee a good
> > interpretation, it just makes it less likely to be bad.
>
> Well that is a nice pat on the back for those authors who do spend
> loads of amounts on doing very thorough research but are questioned
> for canonical interpretation.
>

> <snip>
> >
> >> I think you need to be aware of this as well. We all can't know
> << every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we all miss
> >> things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...
> >
> > You say "form our own idea about it" like this is both a bad thing
> > and an avoidable thing.
>
> Well that is your interpretation of my words. I surely didn't mention
> it that way. But when I read how Marta for example might give a person
> less points because of it.. I am very much for own interpretation
> because it is, for me, a good way to see a different perspective where
> I never thought of before. For example, I might write a very arrogant
> Boromir (with some good citations to back it up), but she adores him
> and she doesn't agree with my intepretation of Boromir at all.. am I
> rewarded with 2 points less then?
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rhapsody,
>
> > > Having done the research does not guarantee a good
> > > interpretation, it just makes it less likely to be bad.
> >
> > Well that is a nice pat on the back for those authors who do
spend
> > loads of amounts on doing very thorough research but are
questioned
> > for canonical interpretation.
> >
>
> Rhapsody, I'm not 100% sure... was this sarcasm? It's so hard to
tell
> online.
>
> I'm all for people doing research; I do a fair amount myself. I do
> think we need to have a reasonable feel for what our readers can be
> expected to know, and if something is more obscure than that, we
should
> take responsibility for "educating" them through authors' notes or
> what-not.
>
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >> I think you need to be aware of this as well. We all can't
know
> > << every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we all
miss
> > >> things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...
> > >
> > > You say "form our own idea about it" like this is both a bad
thing
> > > and an avoidable thing.
> >
> > Well that is your interpretation of my words. I surely didn't
mention
> > it that way. But when I read how Marta for example might give a
person
> > less points because of it.. I am very much for own interpretation
> > because it is, for me, a good way to see a different perspective
where
> > I never thought of before. For example, I might write a very
arrogant
> > Boromir (with some good citations to back it up), but she adores
him
> > and she doesn't agree with my intepretation of Boromir at all..
am I
> > rewarded with 2 points less then?
> >
>
> I think it's a fact of life that, if we choose a difficult or
uncommon
> characterisation, your piece has to be that much better to convince
us
> of it. If I were to write, for example, Faramir as sexually
promiscuous
> or or Feanor as a very sensitive kind of man (elf, you know what I
> mean) I'd be working at a natural disadvantage. This doesn't mean
those
> stories can't work, but that they do need to be better to work. At
> least for me.
>
> I know there's more to this email, not to mention other emails that
I
> want to answer. But I have been feeling thoroughly depressed and
> overwhelmed for several days now, and I really do need to turn in
> early. I think anything I say at this point will come across as
> snippety. So I'll do my best to get to the rest later. If I don't
get
> to it, please don't think that it means less or that I don't *want*
to
> or that I'm trying to ignore you. I'm just exhausted by various
things
> going on (most RL and unrelated to MEFAs).
>
> Thanks for your patience!
>
> Marta
>

> > You're right, characterisation is more open to interpretation.
> Either
> > the Elves did or didn't show up at Helm's Deep, and either Saruman
> did
> > or did not occupy the Shire, and so on. it might happen differently
> in
> > the books and in the movies, but there's no arguing that in the
> books
> > Haldir died at Helm's Deep.
>
> In the books he doesn't die at HD, you mean.
>

> Dwim, who likes her Denethor like other people like their coffee
>

>> So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
>> differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse  and I see
>> an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of it as
>> an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per se, I
>> just
>> want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate having this
>> material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as much as
>> anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story will
>> probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I had
>> fair
>> expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point and a 10
>> point review.
>
> ::Now, I have to say, I write what I think of as essentially
> book-verse
> stories.  Yet I often draw on visual elements and bits of
> characterizations
> that were inspired by the films, as long as they don't contradict the
> book.
> For example, JRRT never tells us the color of Frodo's or Pippin's
> eyes--so I
> don't feel there's anything amiss in using the color of the actors who
> played them.  And we are certainly never given a description of the
> hobbits'
> articles of dress, so mentioning Merry's yellow weskit or Pippin's
> scarf
> would certainly not fall into putting the story in movie-verse, to me.

> On the other hand, sometimes people read into a story something
> that's not
> there.  In my very first story, I had a less than flattering
> protrayal of
> Denethor, my own interpretation of his character for over 30 years,
> from the
> time I read the book the first time.  Yet I had a reviewer who
> assumed I was
> writing "movie-verser Denethor".

>> For the purpose of categorisation, I'm less sure. I think the first
>> question we need to answer is whether movieverse stories should be
>> their own category, and if so why. If we answer that I think it will
>> be
>> a lot easier to see what to do with blends.
>
> ::We had a movie-verse category, or was it sub-category? last year,
> and I
> think it seemed to work all right. I am afraid I would put this whole
> question to the old "if it ain't broke..." question.
>

>> Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
>> drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
>> controversy, because while the details might be different, the
>> *medium*
>> is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in choosing
>> the
>> details. Even if they weren't finished.
>
> ::I fall somewhere in between. I think of The Silm as more or less
> canon to
> the events which take place during those years.  I think of UT and
> Letters
> as "semi-canon"--useful for factoids that are not included in the
> finished
> works, and then I think of the rest as "quasi-canon", again useful for
> certain factoids, but not quite so much so, as the aforementioned
> works.
> All of them are to be treated with a certain amount of respect as
> revealing
> some of JRRT's own mind on certain matters, but I don't see them as
> "canon",
> except for The Silm.
>

>> And Rabidsamfan, at the risk of dividing the fandom into factions...
>> you write mostly hobbit fic, right? While there is certainly
>> information about hobbits in the Letters and HOME, but I think that
>> most of the *events* at least are set out in LOTR and TH. I honestly
>> can't imagine writing Gondor without knowing a lot more about the
>> history of Numenor than we see in the appendices. This is even more
>> true for the elves; I personally think the most interesting part
>> about
>> them are the allusions to the "deeper matters" that are only told in
>> full in the Silm, or UT. In my mind, if it doesn't contradict the
>> published books it's fair game.
>>
>> That's just my personal opinion, though. The main reason I'm allowing
>> C. Tolkien's stuff is it side-steps a controversy on what just is
>> canon. People have been arguing over that for decades, and I doubt
>> we'll settle them in a manner that everyone will agree with.
>
> ::You are quite right in noting that we hobbit writers have a lot more
> published material to draw on.  There's nothing wrong or divisive in
> pointing that out.
>
> Your statement in saying "if it doesn't contradict the published
> books it's
> fair game" is interesting, however, in the light of what you had to
> say
> about seeing movie-verse elements in a book-verse story. 8-)
>