The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide: Volume 2: Reader’s Guide PART 1. Christina Scull

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and the broadcast’ – ‘but I suppose all this is good for sales’ (8 December 1955, Letters, p. 229).

      Given these opinions, it was probably for the sake of publicity, which translated to sales of The Lord of the Rings, that Tolkien let Tiller know that he was willing that adaptations also of The Two Towers and The Return of the King should go ahead, as the producer wished. Among the senior staff of the BBC Third Programme, however, all but one lacked any personal enthusiasm for The Lord of the Rings, and this fact seems to have carried more weight than the evident success of the Fellowship with listeners, and the apparent pride with which the BBC had announced that The Fellowship of the Ring was the first modern novel to be serialized on the Third Programme.

      Tiller was now told that the BBC would have great difficulty in placing another twelve episodes of The Lord of the Rings – six for each of the remaining two volumes, as for the Fellowship – but there could be six new episodes, each also of only thirty minutes, ‘even though painful to the adapter’ – thus only three hours in which to dramatize the rest of the work. It was suggested that this would be possible because ‘Volume 2 is more homogeneous than Volume 1’, and ‘Volume 3 is not only shorter in itself than the other two, but could be made still shorter in adaptation by ending it with the victory and restoration of Gondor, the return to the Shire and final departure to the West being treated as an epilogue and either omitted altogether or disposed of in a few lines of narration’ (letter from Christopher Holme, Chief Assistant, Third Programme, to Terence Tiller, 20 January 1956, BBC Written Archives Centre). Tiller was appalled at the cutting that would be necessary to achieve this scheme. He pointed out that several listeners had thought that, indeed, Volume 1 had been cut excessively at three hours. But he would accept the limitations imposed on him, rather than leave the radio version of The Lord of the Rings unfinished.

      At the beginning of November 1956 Tiller sent Tolkien the first three scripts in the new series. ‘Any listener who knows the books themselves will, I fear, be somewhat disappointed in the broadcasts’, he wrote. ‘I do feel, however, that other listeners will at least obtain the gist of the story and of its excitements’ (letter to Tolkien, 1 November 1956, BBC Written Archives Centre). He had been forced on many occasions to script his own narration, rather than use Tolkien’s. Should the Rohirrim speak with any particular accent? he asked. He proposed to make the Orcs sound as degraded and beastly as possible in their speech; but did Tolkien want them to have any particular accent, and should Sauron’s and Saruman’s Orcs be distinguished? Should the people of Minas Tirith have an accent? Tolkien replied at once:

      Taking ‘accent’ to mean … ‘more or less consistent alterations of the vowels/consonants of “received” English’: I should say that, in the cases you query, no accent-differentiation is needed or desirable. For instance, it would probably be better to avoid certain, actual or conventional, features of modern ‘vulgar’ English in representing Orcs, such as the dropping of aitches (these are, I think, not dropped in the text, and that is deliberate).

      But, of course, for most people, ‘accent’ as defined above is confused with impressions of different intonation, articulation, and tempo. You will, I suppose, have to use such means to make Orcs sound nasty!

      I have no doubt that, if this ‘history’ were real, all users of the C[ommon] Speech would reveal themselves by their accent, differing in place, people, and rank, but that cannot be represented when C[ommon] S[peech] is turned into English – and is not (I think) necessary. I paid great attention to such linguistic differentiation as was possible: in diction, idiom, and so on; and I doubt if much more can be imported, except in so far as the individual actor represents his feeling for the character in tone and style.

      As Minas Tirith is at the source of C[ommon] Speech it is to C[ommon] S[peech] as London is to modern English, and the standard of comparison! None of its inhabitants should have an ‘accent’ in terms of vowels &c.

      The Rohirrim no doubt (as our ancient English ancestors in a similar state of culture and society) spoke, at least their own tongue, with a slower tempo and more sonorous articulation, than modern ‘urbans’. But I think it is safe to represent them when using C[ommon] S[peech], as they practically always do (for obvious reasons) as speaking the best M[inas] T[irith]. Possibly a little too good, as it would be a learned language, somewhat slower and more careful than a native’s. But that is a nicety safely neglected, and not always true: Théoden was born in Gondor and Common Speech was the domestic language of the Golden Hall in his father’s day. … [2 November 1956, Letters, pp. 253–4]

      A few days later, on 6 November, Tolkien wrote to Tiller about the three scripts, not with any criticisms of detail, but rather (one might say) with criticisms of principle. He acknowledged that Tiller had had a difficult task, and could not have done better under the circumstances. But he was sharply displeased with the compression and deletions necessary to fit the rest of The Lord of the Rings into such a short span of time:

      As a private conversation between you and me, I could wish you had perhaps time to spare to tell me why this sort of treatment is accorded to the book, and what value it has – on [the] Third [Programme]. For myself, I do not believe that many, if any, listeners who do not know the book will thread the plot or grasp at all what is going on. And the text is (necessarily in the space) reduced to such simple, even simple-minded, terms that I find it hard to believe it would hold the attention of the Third [Programme’s audience].

      Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation. If that is attempted it needs more space, a lot of space. It is sheerly impossible to pot the two books [The Two Towers and The Return of the King] in the allotted time – whether the object be to provide something in itself entertaining in the medium; or to indicate the nature of the original (or both). Why not then turn it down as unsuitable, if more space is not available?

      I remain, of course, flattered and pleased that my book should receive this attention; but I still cannot help wondering: why this form? … I cannot help thinking that longer actual passages read, as a necklace upon a thread of narration (in which the narrator might occasionally venture an interpretation of more than mere plot-events) would, or might, prove both more interesting to listeners, and fairer to the author. But, as I have said, I lack experience in the medium, and this is in any case, no criticism of your text, but a sighing for something quite different – a moon no doubt. Final query: can a tale not conceived dramatically but (for lack of a more precise term) epically, be dramatized – unless the dramatizer is given or takes liberties, as an independent person? [Letters, pp. 254–5]

      The preserved Tolkien–Tiller correspondence ends at that point; perhaps no reply was possible, nor is it known if Tolkien was sent the remaining three scripts. The new series of episodes was broadcast by the BBC from 19 November to 23 December 1956.

      In 1981 another BBC radio adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, by Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell with music by Stephen Oliver, was broadcast on Radio 4 in twenty-six half-hour parts (rebroadcast in later years in thirteen one-hour parts). Sibley and Bakewell treated their source with great respect, utilizing Tolkien’s words and style whenever possible even as cuts were made, segments reorganized for dramatic effect, and additional dialogue invented. The series was well received by listeners, if not without criticism. In reviewing the first episodes for the BBC Radio 4 programme Kaleidoscope, Humphrey Carpenter felt that radio reduced The Lord of the Rings to dialogue, that the production lacked the full flavour of the book, and that The Lord of the Rings could not be successful in any medium other than print. See further, Microphones in Middle Earth, ed. Ian D. Smith (1982).

      For lack of broadcast time Sibley and Bakewell omitted (among other elements) from their scripts the Tom Bombadil chapters from Book I of The Lord of the Rings, but in 1992 Sibley adapted these as two of the six parts of the BBC Radio 5 series Tales from СКАЧАТЬ