[Rictor]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2003/11/16/lord_of_the_gold_ring/

Agree? Disagree?

_____

Personally, I am sort of in the middle, though certainly much more on the  anti-commercialization side. I grew up with Tolkien, I had it read to me before I could read myself, I since then I have reread all of Tolkien's works several times. For me, Tolkien is this sort of fond childhood memory, and I cringe a bit every time I see an Aragorn lunchbag or a Gimli cofee mug.

On the other hand, all this merchandising helps to promote the books and the vision put forth, and encourages people to really start thinking about it. I can't say that I wouldn't like to own some cool Tolkien related items (swords, board games, maps etc) and I think that at least some of the people buying the various accessories do so out of a true love and understanding of Tolkein's works. Just 5-6 years ago, when I was really into Tolkien, and I was looking online for some stuff to buy, there was barely anything. There was maybe one board game and 2 or 3 swords. Thats it. Now, as you are probably aware of, anything from trading cards to miniature helmets is available for purchase.

One thing that has bugged me, is how the publishing company (Houghton MIffin (sp?)) has for some time now (way before the films) been releasing these special editions or something of almost every book Tolkien has written, and then some. I mean, in the Middle-Earth category, there is a grand total of 5 books written, and yet if you check any bookstore you can find literally 50 books on the subject. Excluding the companion guides, atlases etc (actual new books), you've got The Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillion available in 10 different variations. Not to mention the volumes of books that are essentially portions of the existing books with some small changes and memoires added (I don't have as much against these, they are works of actual significance).

So basically, I am more or less against the merchandising and exploitation for commercial pursopes of Tolkein's literary works. For me, though I'm not in any danger of losing site of what the books really mean to me, I think that there should remain a magical and wonderful (you know what I mean - non commercial) air to the books, so that 50 years down the road, when a father is reading the Lord of the Rings to his son, the kid doesn't say "Where's the part when Legolas slides down the railing on the shield, shooting at Orcs?"

[diamondgeezer]

My little brother by two years hates reading. Mostly because I love it I suppose, but he used to go out of his way to avoid books. When Fellowship trailers began to do the rounds he read the entire LOTR cover to cover with barely a break in between. Thus I have to take my hat off to the films.

On the down side, he's now trying to steal my copy of the Silmarilion at every oppertunity, the little git

[TrashMan]

Sillmarillion is brilliant! A work of art!

History of Middle Earth is allso brilliant! (+ you can find loads of interesting stuff there - like the fact that orcs were HUMANS once, not Elves!)

[Shrike]

Personally I'm of the opinion that while Tolkien excels at worldbuilding, his actual writing style is, frankly, not the greatest.  He has a real problem with pacing and at times it seems like he writes about things merely to showcase his world and then glosses over rather important events.

[diamondgeezer]

Yeah, it's more like a painting with words really. But then it's only meant to be a fairy tale.

[Windrunner]

i have never read tolkiens books, thatswhy its more intresting to watch the movies.

BTW has any of you guys read The Sword Of Truth series written by terry goodkind? in my own opinion its the best novels i have read so far.

[Zeronet]

Who is Terry Goodkind?

[mikhael]

I've read the Sword of Truth. Its got its good points and its bad. The latest book is notably bad, in my opinion. My favorites so far are Stone of Tears, Temple of the Winds, and Faith of the Fallen. Wizard's First Rule was kind of forced, but I'll forgive that, since its the first. Blood of the Fold, Soul of the Fire and Pillars of Creation are kind of so-so. Naked Empire was just plain BAD.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Shrike
Personally I'm of the opinion that while Tolkien excels at worldbuilding, his actual writing style is, frankly, not the greatest.  He has a real problem with pacing and at times it seems like he writes about things merely to showcase his world and then glosses over rather important events.

Hmm, depends on who thinks what is important. What the "movie-going crowd" thinks is important might not be really the essence of the books. For example, the battles, the lovey dovey stuff etc.

What I think is the case is that what Tolkien elaborates on is, while sometimes a bit long-winded, the core of the books. The Lord of the Rings is about an epic stuggle between good and evil. I think thats its more about personal victory than the victory of armies and empires. As well, there is a healthy dose of the expanded history of Ea in the LOTR as well, cause its Tolkien writing after all.

I find different parts of the books interesting for different reasons. For example, the Silmarillion is just amazing in its scope and though it may sound contradictory, its detail. Its about gods and demons, war and peace, good and evil etc etc. From an "action" point of view, as well as from a scholarly point of view, the Silmarillion is the book to read. However, then you've got The Hobbit, which is a different kind of experience altogether. Its more "innocent" and thats really what I love about it. Its about Bilbo being thrust into this adventure that he doesn't really understand fully and trying to do the right thing. And then, besides all that, you've got the Lord of the Rings, and thats really a mixing of the two experiences. Some of the stuff that I find really interesting in there is the stuff that was cut from the movies cause it wasn't "exciting" enough. LIkie for example Tom Bombadil and Gan-buri-Gan. I like the fact that the majority of their identies are left to the reader to interpret in his/her own way.

So really, if you think about it, you may just find the books boring or long-winded in certain parts cause maybe thats just not your thing. There is enough in the LOTR trilogy for almost anyone to ind something he/she personally likes. For me, the LOTR is less about having 100,000 Orcs besieging MInas Tirith (well, that too, but to a lesser degree) and more about Frodo and Sam, and Gandalf and Tom Bombadil and this whole beatiful world created from the mind of a single person.

Well, that was my rant. Lets get some replies in here, get a real discussion going.

[IceFire]

The LOTR movies have probably had the effect of getting of people to read some really good books and absorb some really good stories and lessons on the world.  Its a very classic tale in many senses and its one that resonates no matter when you read it...I think thats a worthwhile endeavour and the guys who made this movie did it justice I think.

I know the purists absolutely hate them because this little thing isn't done and this little thing isn't mentioned and the entire last few chapters of the third book is missing but I say 'whatever' and go and enjoy three fantastically put together movies.  This world lives now...in books and in movies.

I'm glad the movies happened and that they were done the way they were.

[diamondgeezer]

People who have only watched the movies must read the books in order to appreciate quite how much Jackson pulled out of his arse. All the crappy single-parent stuff with Elrond, for example, is not Tolkien and I can only imagine he'd cringe at that kind of stuff being sold with his name on it...

[karajorma]

None saw her last meeting with Elrond her father, for they went into the hills and there spoke long together, and bitter was their parting that should endure beyond the ends of the world

Make of that what you will.

I'm not one of those who complains at the changes between the book and the movie. If you've seen the commentary on the extended edition a lot of them make sense (at least in the context of the movie). In fact the only one I haven't heard an explaination for is Aragorn going off the side of a cliff.

[neo_hermes]

....

[diamondgeezer]

I'm not touching the cliff thing with a forty foot pole

[mikhael]

Having read the books more than once, and having digested the Silmarillion, I cannot find fault with Jackson's treatment of the material. There have been worse adaptation of literature to the screen, but there have been few better that I can think of.

As for Tolkien's work, this commercialization is getting people (like my wife) who wouldn't have been interested otherwise to give it a look.

[Setekh]

And like me. I've always wanted to read the books, but all I ever managed was the Chronicles of Narnia. Now that I've got the time (after my exams), these movies are the reason why I'm getting into the texts properly.

[mikhael]

Steak, the Chronicles of Narnia, like Tolkien, are required reading. As is His Dark Materials, any and all Roald Dahl and Lewis Carrol.

I could go on, but that's just a core list.

[diamondgeezer]

Narnia is great stuff. Rumour has it the series is being turned in to a moving picture, whether for big or small screen I dunno. Seven films over seven years might be taking the piss a bit, mind.

I really ought to get meself a Narnia boxset at some point...

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

I got interested in LOTR only after seeing the first movie. Now I've read the book three times, and all I can say: fantastic! It was the first time a book actually made me feel really sad, as the ending was so beautiful.

As for the movies, I tend not to compare them to the book. I consider both the book and the movies to be extremely good, even tough both have their faults. I don't think anyone could have done better job making the movies than Jackson did, and I'm very happy with the results. Just think if they had made only two  typical action packed Hollywood films.

[diamondgeezer]

I've said this a hundred times before nut I'll say it again: it's now what Jackson cut. Yes, I'm a fanboy but I'm not criticising him for leaving out Tom Bombadil or the Barrows or anything else like that. I object to what he added. Case in point: the cliff. What the **** was that supposed to be?