Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5

Öjevind Lång wrote:

> "Steuard" <steuard DeleteThis @slimy.com> skrev i meddelandet
>
> [snip]
>
>> ObTolkien: I have no clear memory of how much sci-fi Tolkien read,
>> especially "pulp" stories (is that at all an accurate take on
>> Lensmen?). Does anyone know if he expressed opinions about the big
>> names in sci-fi of his day?
>
> I think the Lensman series can accurately be described as pulp. Some pulp is
> enjoyable.
> In Letter 294, Tolkien writes: "I enjoy the S.F. of Isaac Azimov".( The
> misspelling is excusable in such an old man.) I wonder if he ever knew that
> Isaac Asimov enjoyed and admired LotR.

The context of that quote may also be germane to Steuard's question,
although it deals with works that are either more strictly fantasy or
not "big names" of SF (although Christopher is at least moderately
well-known; I remember thoroughly enjoying the Tripod series when I was
younger). Of course, I know this has been quoted here before (which is
where I read it in the first place), and is probably well known, but I
will reproduce it for the sake of clarity:

"I read quite a lot - or more truly, try to read many books (notably
so-called Science Fiction and Fantasy). But I seldom find any modern
books that hold my attention.... There are exceptions. I have read all
that E. R. Eddison wrote, in spite of his peculiarly bad nomenclature
and personal philosophy. I was greatly taken by the book that was (I
believe) the runner-up when The L. R. was given the Fantasy Award: Death
of Grass [John Christopher]. I enjoy of S.F. of Isaac Azimov. Above
these, I was recently deeply engaged in the books of Mary Renault;
especially the two about Theseus, The King Must Die, and The Bull from
the Sea. A few days ago I actually received a card of appreciation from
her; perhaps the piece of 'Fan-mail' that gives me the most pleasure."

--from Letter 294


Zorag.
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne.DeleteThis@attglobal.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:477bb5d9$0$9106$607ed4bc@cv.net...

[snip]

>> I disagree. God forbid that Chuck Norris ever pokes his face into
>> something related to B5. [:O
>
> Actually, during the delay between making the B5 pilot and starting the
> series, as a favor to a friend, JMS spent some time working for "Walker:
> Texas Ranger", and wrote the script for one episode.

Oh, dear. It's one of the most moronic shows I have ever had the misfortune
to watch. Even so, I find no similarities between the Texas Rangers and the
Rangers in B5, whereas I do think they seem inspired by Tolkien's Rangers.
In the absence of more tangible evidence that JMS wanted to honour Chuck
Norris, I will continue to think so. It would be interesting to ask JMS
himself about it.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne.RemoveThis@attglobal.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:477bc666$0$9098$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:

[snip]

>> Oddly enough, learning all this doesn't seem to destroy my expectations
>> of enjoying the remaining seasons when I get hold of them. I know by now
>> that JMS is always keeping a minium of three balls in the air.
>
> Just be prepared for the bump at the beginning of the 5th season, when:
> the show was renewed after the last episode of the 4th season had
> already been filmed,
> Claudia Christian left the show, and
> JMS's notes were thrown in the trash by a hotel cleaning staff.
>
> As a result, several of the early 5th-season episodes go nowhere (although
> they are interesting as stories in their own right), and the main plot of
> the first half of the season is weakened because two other characters have
> to do what Ivanova should have done.

I've been warned about that, though I didn't know about the trashing of JMS'
notes. (The person responsible was probably in the pay of the Shadows.) I
think it's a pity about Ivanova, but I can understand that Claudia Christian
sought other employment since she couldn't be sure that there would be a
fifth season.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

John W. Kennedy <jwkenne.RemoveThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> John W. Kennedy <jwkenne.RemoveThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> (BIGGEST POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR "BABYLON 5")
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x
>>> x

>> But IIRC that only applies to the single episode where the whole
>> conflict is resolved. If you take away this episode, and just keep
>> "both Vorlons/Arisians and Shadows/Eddorians go away", it's pretty
>> much the same thing, isn't it?

> From early on -- say, the last episode of the first season at the
> latest -- the plot of B5 is set up to make you think that it's going to
> be a clone of "Lensmen". The sting in the tail is that the Beneficent
> Demigods are quite as bad as the Evil Ones -- just more subtle.

Is that what you meant by "horrible wrong"? If yes, then my idea of
"horrible wrong" is maybe different

BTW, the Arisians are not that benificient, either, if you read
between the lines. They manipulate humanity (and other races) left and
right, for example with this long genetic program. Then end result of
this program are "unnatural" monsters with a vast amount of power,
which will never fit into society, which cannot be controlled by
society, and which could become the worst dictators of all time, if
they chose to do so. The whole construction can only work if these
dictators stay benevolent, of their own will.

So while the Arisians prevent the universe from being taken over by
the Eddorians, and modelled after their culture of self-interest, they
don't offer a really an alternative where all sentient beings can be free,
either, and instead impose their very own model on the universe, also
by force. They are decent enough to vanish after they have created
their successors, and that really distinguishes them as "Good"
from "Evil", but in other respects...

Does the end justify the means? Is it feasible, even with good
intentions, to manipulate others? Tolkien, for example, give different
answers to those questions.

> Well of course it only happens when it happens. [...] But Sheridan
> actually makes the key discovery in the episode titled "Z'ha'dum",
> which is six episodes prior.

I wouldn't have minded the twist that "Vorlons do it out of
self-interest, too", and as I tried to argue, that's not so much
different from the Arisians in the first place. Where it totally goes
horribly wrong, if you want, is when Sheridan can turn the tables
with just a few sentences. But what goes wrong there is not a theme
that is somehow twisted, what goes wrong is that JMS can not come up
with a convincing conclusion to this theme. And if you just ignore
his bad conclusion, then I'd still say the development is very similar.

> The influence from Tolkien is minor, in comparison.

In concrete plot matter, yes (though the Bridge of Khazad Dum figures
somewhat prominently, for example). But in overall feeling, it's
huge -- and there's some quote I don't remember where JMS also says
so himself.

The acknowledgments with a name here and there are just the icing on
the cake.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:02:00 +0100, "Öjevind Lång"
<bredband.net RemoveThis @ojevind.lang> wrote:

<snippo>

>I've read a lot of the information in Wikipedia about the show, as well as
>read comments here, and I believe you are right. (I have also seen one of
>the TV films made about B5, the one about the Rangers; it was not very good,
>I thought.) But I will definitely get hold of the DVD boxes containing
>Seasons 3-5 too.

I saw the whole thing on Sci-Fi in "letterboxed" format (which, I
believe, means that the top and bottom of the original image were cut
off). The actual series is definitely worth seeing, at least once.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>
> I saw the whole thing on Sci-Fi in "letterboxed" format (which, I
> believe, means that the top and bottom of the original image were cut
> off). The actual series is definitely worth seeing, at least once.

*laughs gently* No, silly. Letterbox means it's filmed widescreen, and
when you see it in fullscreen TV format, the sides are cut off to make
it fit the TV. When you see it in letterbox, you're seeing the whole
picture, not cut.

Michelle
Flutist
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Michelle J. Haines wrote:

> Paul S. Person wrote:
>>
>>
>> I saw the whole thing on Sci-Fi in "letterboxed" format (which, I
>> believe, means that the top and bottom of the original image were cut
>> off). The actual series is definitely worth seeing, at least once.
>
> *laughs gently* No, silly. Letterbox means it's filmed widescreen, and
> when you see it in fullscreen TV format, the sides are cut off to make
> it fit the TV. When you see it in letterbox, you're seeing the whole
> picture, not cut.

....and a consequently smaller image

I once watched a copy of /The Lady Vanishes/ in which the Lady really did.
It was a commercial VHS but instead of being letterboxed or cropped left &
right, it was cropped entirely on one side! I wonder what you call that...
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:15:19 -0700, "Michelle J. Haines"
<mhaines DeleteThis @nanc.com> wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote:
>>
>>
>> I saw the whole thing on Sci-Fi in "letterboxed" format (which, I
>> believe, means that the top and bottom of the original image were cut
>> off). The actual series is definitely worth seeing, at least once.
>
>*laughs gently* No, silly. Letterbox means it's filmed widescreen, and
>when you see it in fullscreen TV format, the sides are cut off to make
>it fit the TV. When you see it in letterbox, you're seeing the whole
>picture, not cut.

Usually, yes. However, I believe B5 was filmed for TV, and at 1.33:1.
This is, IIRC, based on statements made on Usenet when this happened.

So, in this case, my statement is (so far as I know) correct. Wierd as
it sounds. Of course, its very wierdness tells us who was responsible:
the marketing department, who are always ready to mess up a product
under the delusion that they are as creative as the people who created
it.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Paul S. Person wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:02:00 +0100, "Öjevind Lång"
> <bredband.net DeleteThis @ojevind.lang> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
>> I've read a lot of the information in Wikipedia about the show, as well as
>> read comments here, and I believe you are right. (I have also seen one of
>> the TV films made about B5, the one about the Rangers; it was not very good,
>> I thought.) But I will definitely get hold of the DVD boxes containing
>> Seasons 3-5 too.
>
> I saw the whole thing on Sci-Fi in "letterboxed" format (which, I
> believe, means that the top and bottom of the original image were cut
> off). The actual series is definitely worth seeing, at least once.

Not precisely. The original series was made wide-screen, but shown
center-only, and, to save computer time, the side panels were only
wireframed and not rendered when CGI was involved. "Plenty of time to
complete the rendering when HDTV comes in," they reasoned.

Then some drooling idiot at Warner Brothers lost all the CGI master
files, and the ability to render the side panels was lost forever,
unless either the masters are rediscovered or WB decides to go to the
considerable expense of doing all the CGI over again from scratch (as
has recently been done for ST:TOS, so it's not impossible).

So the DVDs show more than the original broadcasts when the scene is all
live action, because the sides have been added, but show less when there
is CGI, because the top and bottom had to be trimmed to match the live
action.

--
John W. Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> John W. Kennedy <jwkenne RemoveThis @attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>>> John W. Kennedy <jwkenne RemoveThis @attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> (BIGGEST POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR "BABYLON 5")
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>>>> x
>
>>> But IIRC that only applies to the single episode where the whole
>>> conflict is resolved. If you take away this episode, and just keep
>>> "both Vorlons/Arisians and Shadows/Eddorians go away", it's pretty
>>> much the same thing, isn't it?
>
>> From early on -- say, the last episode of the first season at the
>> latest -- the plot of B5 is set up to make you think that it's going to
>> be a clone of "Lensmen". The sting in the tail is that the Beneficent
>> Demigods are quite as bad as the Evil Ones -- just more subtle.
>
> Is that what you meant by "horrible wrong"? If yes, then my idea of
> "horrible wrong" is maybe different
>
> BTW, the Arisians are not that benificient, either, if you read
> between the lines. They manipulate humanity (and other races) left and
> right, for example with this long genetic program. Then end result of
> this program are "unnatural" monsters with a vast amount of power,
> which will never fit into society, which cannot be controlled by
> society, and which could become the worst dictators of all time, if
> they chose to do so. The whole construction can only work if these
> dictators stay benevolent, of their own will.
>
> So while the Arisians prevent the universe from being taken over by
> the Eddorians, and modelled after their culture of self-interest, they
> don't offer a really an alternative where all sentient beings can be free,
> either, and instead impose their very own model on the universe, also
> by force. They are decent enough to vanish after they have created
> their successors, and that really distinguishes them as "Good"
> from "Evil", but in other respects...
>
> Does the end justify the means? Is it feasible, even with good
> intentions, to manipulate others? Tolkien, for example, give different
> answers to those questions.

You can reason like that, if you wish, but in "Doc" Smith's mind, the
Children of the Lens are Good, the Arisians are Good, and if you accept
the books as they are, that's that, question closed, discussion over.

>> Well of course it only happens when it happens. [...] But Sheridan
>> actually makes the key discovery in the episode titled "Z'ha'dum",
>> which is six episodes prior.

> I wouldn't have minded the twist that "Vorlons do it out of
> self-interest, too",

Not "self-interest". Plain old swamp-sucking pride. "Because I'm the
Mommy -- that's why!"

> and as I tried to argue, that's not so much
> different from the Arisians in the first place. Where it totally goes
> horribly wrong, if you want, is when Sheridan can turn the tables
> with just a few sentences. But what goes wrong there is not a theme
> that is somehow twisted, what goes wrong is that JMS can not come up
> with a convincing conclusion to this theme. And if you just ignore
> his bad conclusion, then I'd still say the development is very similar.

He doesn't "turn the tables"; that's the point. He /can't/ beat the
Shadows or the Vorlons. What he can do is engineer a stalemate and point
it out to them. Fortunately for Sheridan, the Shadows and the Vorlons,
unlike certain US presidents of late, get the point.

And, as frequent poster "Sea Wasp" once pointed out, it operates another
way. Sheridan brings to his showdown with the gods, their own god. And
he won't even talk to them. He just demands that they, for once, listen
to what the children have to say.

Someone once asked JMS what B5 was about, and he answered, "The need to
kill your parents."
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Incidentally, it is strange how one's perception of certain characters in
the show changes. When I saw the pilot film, I detested G'Kar. Then I saw
that film about the Rangers and realized there was another, very humane side
to him. And then, watching the first two seasons,

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

I found that the Narn had every reason to hate the Centaurians, who had
behaved abominbly to them. And then Ambassador Mollari sides with some
really bad guys, and his people proceed to behave even worse than they did
the first time over, while G'Kar acts with honour and dignity - and he was
also prepared to shake hands and make up with Mollari after the Centauri
Emperor's peace speech.
Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks that Mollari seems to be to
some extent a caricature of Napoleon? He wears something rather close to the
uniform Napoleon habitually wore, and his hair reminds you of the kind of
hat Napoleon wore. And he has a big portrait of himself on the wall - a
truly Napoleonian touch!
The development of Vir Cotto from a clown into someone to respect and like
is also stimulating.

Ob Tolkien: I believe one can characterize the relation between the Minbari
and the Earthers as to some extent similar to that between Tolkien's Elves
and Men. There is even, we learn, the occasional marriage between Minbari
and Earther, with tremendous consequences.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Öjevind Lång wrote:
> Incidentally, it is strange how one's perception of certain characters in
> the show changes. When I saw the pilot film, I detested G'Kar. Then I saw
> that film about the Rangers and realized there was another, very humane side
> to him. And then, watching the first two seasons,
>
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> I found that the Narn had every reason to hate the Centaurians, who had
> behaved abominbly to them. And then Ambassador Mollari sides with some
> really bad guys, and his people proceed to behave even worse than they did
> the first time over, while G'Kar acts with honour and dignity - and he was
> also prepared to shake hands and make up with Mollari after the Centauri
> Emperor's peace speech.

Only after he'd been about to assassinate him! G'Kar's honour and
decency really comes to the fore after the fall of Narn. Remember that
when Morden asks what G'Kar wants he answers that he wants to utterly
crush the Centauri - had the Shadows sided with the Narn the exact same
fate would have been visited on Centauri Prime. The only thing that
prevents it is G'Kar's lack of ambition: he's content simply to have his
revenge on the Centauri, and doesn't much care what else happens. This
doesn't suite the plans of the Shadows.

But you are right, the journey of the two characters is pivotal to the
the story. Londo undergoes a much of a change as G'Kar. They are my
favourite characters, and it's just not possible to separate them. There
is fantastic interplay between the two.

> Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks that Mollari seems to be to
> some extent a caricature of Napoleon? He wears something rather close to the
> uniform Napoleon habitually wore, and his hair reminds you of the kind of
> hat Napoleon wore. And he has a big portrait of himself on the wall - a
> truly Napoleonian touch!

IIRC that was entirely the intention.

> The development of Vir Cotto from a clown into someone to respect and like
> is also stimulating.
>
It is the real strength of B5 that every major character undergoes a
journey that sees them change or alter. Also, the emphasis that there
are many ways to look at a problem, and that life isn't black and white.

I think the important thing is that B5 demonstrates that the
Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre isn't necessarily about stereotypical characters,
which has always been a criticism (thank you Star Trek and David
Eddings, amongst others).

Jamie
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5 

Öjevind Lång wrote:

> The development of Vir Cotto from a clown into someone to respect and
> like is also stimulating.

Initially, you can hardly distinguish Vir from the character he played in
Animal House, but he becomes one of my favorites.

--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Tolkien Quoted in Babylon 5