Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » I just watched Fellowship of the rings.
I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136526] Di, 20 September 2005 01:05
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136527 ] Di, 20 September 2005 01:14
Beeblebear  
"Arthur Dent" <No.m [at] il.here> wrote in message
news:432f43c2$0$9152$bb4e3ad8 [at] newscene.com...
> I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm thinking
> maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on the movie
> and
> story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I
> probably
> wouldn't be asking this question.
>
> Is there a map of the area online as is seen in the first part of the
> movie?

Try Fellowship of the Ring.
Tis the first of the trilogy. Though if Tom Bombadil bugs you, just skip
forwards 50 pages or so.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clythJFK [at] ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)

"Captain, I need to kill someone." -- Worf
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136528 ] Di, 20 September 2005 01:38
NobodyMan  
On 19 Sep 2005 18:05:01 -0500, Arthur Dent <No.m [at] il.here> wrote:

>I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm thinking
>maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on the movie and
>story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I probably
>wouldn't be asking this question.
>
>Is there a map of the area online as is seen in the first part of the movie?
>
>
>Dent
If you are asking which book to read in the LOTR series, it would have
to be Fellowship of the Ring, followed by The Two Towers and finishing
with The Return of the King.

Don't think because you saw the movie you can skip the Fellowship of
the Ring. They really aren't all that similiar.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136531 ] Di, 20 September 2005 02:34
Stan Brown  
On 19 Sep 2005 18:05:01 -0500 in rec.arts.books.tolkien, Arthur
Dent favored us with...
> I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm thinking
> maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on the movie and
> story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I probably
> wouldn't be asking this question.

Welcome!

The three movie titles match the three book titles, even though the
movie is rather different from the books.

So you'd start with THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, then progress to
THE TWO TOWERS and finally THE RETURN OF THE KING. Nearly any
bookshop will give you several editions to choose from, or of
course you can get them from any library.

A word of caution: You'll find the pacing of the books is much
slower than the movie. Many people find it slow going. So if you
decide you do want to read /The Lord of the Rings/, give yourself a
good trial of it, say until after the habits and Aragorn have left
the Bree village.

A second word of caution: While you're very welcome here, you may
not want to hang out with us just yet, until you've read the book.
The reason I suggest that is that we tend to talk about a lot of
the plot points, thus spoiling the surprise for a new reader. We
all had the delight of discovering each twist and turn as Tolkien
revealed them, and I'd hate to deprive you of that same pleasure.

> Is there a map of the area online as is seen in the first part of the movie?

http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/Middleearth 2_c.jpg

Most editions of the books also have maps.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136535 ] Di, 20 September 2005 04:17
Flame of the West  
Arthur Dent wrote:

> I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm thinking
> maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on the movie and
> story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I probably
> wouldn't be asking this question.

I disagree with all three answers you got so far.
I recommend you read The Hobbit before starting
Fellowship of the Ring. And I strongly urge you to
finish the Lord of the Rings books before seeing
any more LotR movies!


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136543 ] Di, 20 September 2005 01:25
Derek Broughton  
Arthur Dent wrote:

> I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm thinking
> maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on the movie
> and
> story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I
> probably wouldn't be asking this question.

You have to start with the Fellowship of the Ring. It's not like modern
fiction where you're _supposed_ to be able to pick up volume III and know
what's going on. If you start with the Return of the King, you're going to
be really lost.

> Dent

That would be the Late Dent Arthur Dent.
--
derek
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136548 ] Di, 20 September 2005 17:03
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136549 ] Di, 20 September 2005 17:06
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136554 ] Di, 20 September 2005 19:39
the softrat  
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:34:34 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/Middleearth 2_c.jpg
>
Jeez, Stan! Ya shoulda given him the map from _Bored of the Rings_!!

"Up, Down, Right, Left"

the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
It's not only unique, it's different.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136555 ] Di, 20 September 2005 19:40
the softrat  
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:17:50 -0400, Flame of the West
<FotW [at] NOSPAMsolinas.org> wrote:
>
>I disagree with all three answers you got so far.
>I recommend you read The Hobbit before starting
>Fellowship of the Ring. And I strongly urge you to
>finish the Lord of the Rings books before seeing
>any more LotR movies!
>
PPPPTTTTTHHHHHHBBBBBBBPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTTTT!!!!

the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
It's not only unique, it's different.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136558 ] Di, 20 September 2005 20:26
Stan Brown  
On 20 Sep 2005 10:03:06 -0500 in rec.arts.books.tolkien, Arthur
Dent favored us with...
> I enjoyed what I saw in the movie. I'll read the book. Somethings
> one misses things in a movie when one hasn't read the book.

Don't expect the book to fill in all the gaps in the movie -- Peter
Jackson made up rather a lot that wasn't in Tolkien.

Many of us prefer Tolkien's story to Jackson's, but of course
you'll make up your own mind on that score. In any event, I envy
you, having a first reading of the story still ahead of you.

(P.S. Please remember to trim your quotes. When you have only a
three-line comment, it's seldom a good idea to quote several
screenfuls of text.)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136562 ] Di, 20 September 2005 22:13
Jette Goldie  
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:34:34 +0100, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Many people find it slow going. So if you
> decide you do want to read /The Lord of the Rings/, give yourself a
> good trial of it, say until after the habits and Aragorn have left
> the Bree village. ^^^^^^
>

OK, who uses a spell checker, then?
--
Jette Goldie
jette.goldie [at] gmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wolfette/
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136571 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 01:25
donnellaf  
Derek Broughton wrote:

> It's not like modern
> fiction where you're _supposed_ to be able to pick up volume III and know
> what's going on.

That's something I don't really understand--where did the idea come
from that fiction has to be stand-alone? I recently came across some
people who didn't like the most recent of Le Guin's Earthsea books
because it presupposed that they were already familiar with the world
and the characters. They said it was good in all other respects, but
since it didn't stand on its own, they didn't like it. This confuses
me. If the work is meant to be nothing other than book 6 in an
already-existing cycle, then it should be evaluated as such. That it
fails to be something that it never intended to be in the first place
seems completely irrelevant.

I've seen similar arguments elsewhere. Is this an established literary
rule that writers are supposed to fit if they wish to qualify for
greatness? Is it assumed that writers should write down to the
lowest-common-denominator lazy fools who can't be bothered to pick up
more than one book in any particular setting or story arc? I would
never think to start reading a book in the middle of series without
having read previous books. Am I wrong in assuming that I'm normal in
this regard?


Andy
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136575 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 05:13
Mark Edelstein  
>
> I've seen similar arguments elsewhere. Is this an established literary
> rule that writers are supposed to fit if they wish to qualify for
> greatness? Is it assumed that writers should write down to the
> lowest-common-denominator lazy fools who can't be bothered to pick up
> more than one book in any particular setting or story arc? I would
> never think to start reading a book in the middle of series without
> having read previous books. Am I wrong in assuming that I'm normal in
> this regard?
>
>
> Andy

Frankly I wish other authors were like Tolkien-he provided an entirely
adequate (in terms of familiarity with plot-not so much with Middle
Earth of course) synopsis before The Two Towers and The Return of the
King.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136577 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 06:02
Flame of the West  
Andrew F. Donnell wrote:

> Is this an established literary
> rule that writers are supposed to fit if they wish to qualify for
> greatness? Is it assumed that writers should write down to the
> lowest-common-denominator lazy fools who can't be bothered to pick up
> more than one book in any particular setting or story arc?

I've never read Harry Potter, but I have heard
that that later books are so long partly because
JK recaps what has happened in the previous
books.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136578 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 06:34
the softrat  
On 20 Sep 2005 16:25:07 -0700, "Andrew F. Donnell"
<donnellaf [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>Is it assumed that writers should write down to the
>lowest-common-denominator lazy fools who can't be bothered to pick up
>more than one book in any particular setting or story arc?

Yew got it, dooode! That's the Murkian Weigh! And the Yew-Kay Weigh.
An d ....

Dummm ROOLZ!!

the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
It's not only unique, it's different.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136580 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 09:23
danhenry  
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:25:52 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>Arthur Dent wrote:
>
>> I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm thinking
>> maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on the movie
>> and
>> story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I
>> probably wouldn't be asking this question.
>
>You have to start with the Fellowship of the Ring. It's not like modern
>fiction where you're _supposed_ to be able to pick up volume III and know
>what's going on. If you start with the Return of the King, you're going to
>be really lost.

That's not a modern/non-modern thing. That's a "novel" versus a "third
of a romance that's been chopped into thirds purely as a publishing
decision" thing.

If LOTR had actually been a trilogy, each volume would stand alone on
its own right, although if later works didn't significant benefit from
also having read the earlier works, it'd be rather an ill-considered
trilogy IMO. Which isn't to say that the plots can't be unconnected.
Thematic unity is certainly a valid approach to related works, rather
than (or in addition to, of course) any continuity of plot.

As an example many are probably familiar with, The Magician's Nephew can
be read independently of the other Narnia books and presents a
self-contained story of merit. However, it makes references to things in
the other Narnia books and it would lose something if one read it first,
according to the "internal chronological order" arrangement in which one
can now find the Chronicles of Narnia published.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136585 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 14:38
Derek Broughton  
Jette Goldie wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:34:34 +0100, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Many people find it slow going. So if you
>> decide you do want to read /The Lord of the Rings/, give yourself a
>> good trial of it, say until after the habits and Aragorn have left
>> the Bree village. ^^^^^^
>>
>
> OK, who uses a spell checker, then?

LOL. knode knows that "hobbit" is a valid word, but not knode :-)
--
derek
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136586 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 14:50
Derek Broughton  
R. Dan Henry wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:25:52 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>Arthur Dent wrote:
>>
>>> I've never read any Tolkien books or seen the movie before. I'm
>>> thinking maybe I should read some of the first books to get a bearing on
>>> the movie and
>>> story. Which book should I start with? If I didn't enjoy movie I
>>> probably wouldn't be asking this question.
>>
>>You have to start with the Fellowship of the Ring. It's not like modern
>>fiction where you're _supposed_ to be able to pick up volume III and know
>>what's going on. If you start with the Return of the King, you're going
>>to be really lost.
>
> That's not a modern/non-modern thing. That's a "novel" versus a "third
> of a romance that's been chopped into thirds purely as a publishing
> decision" thing.

No, I don't think so. See my response to Andrew.
>
> If LOTR had actually been a trilogy, each volume would stand alone on
> its own right,

LOTR was _actually_ 6 volumes, and none of them stand alone.
--
derek
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136587 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 14:45
Derek Broughton  
Andrew F. Donnell wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> It's not like modern
>> fiction where you're _supposed_ to be able to pick up volume III and know
>> what's going on.
>
> That's something I don't really understand--where did the idea come
> from that fiction has to be stand-alone? I recently came across some
> people who didn't like the most recent of Le Guin's Earthsea books
> because it presupposed that they were already familiar with the world
> and the characters.

Publishers. Back in the days of "pulp" fiction and movie serials, everyone
expected stories "to be continued" - or even earlier when most of Dickens'
work was released in serial form. By the 70s, when George Lucas wanted to
make a 9 part "Star Wars", it was laughed at. otoh, thankfully, it looks
like we'll never get 7, 8 and 9.

> I've seen similar arguments elsewhere.

It's not my argument - that's why my stress on "supposed": I don't like it.

> Is this an established literary
> rule that writers are supposed to fit if they wish to qualify for
> greatness?

I just believe it's an established publishing rule that writers are supposed
to fit, if they wish to be read at all.

> I would
> never think to start reading a book in the middle of series without
> having read previous books. Am I wrong in assuming that I'm normal in
> this regard?

Probably - but also you are probably normal for _this_ group :-)
--
derek
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136588 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 15:50
Graham Lockwood  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:50:20 -0500, Derek Broughton wrote
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
{snip}
>> If LOTR had actually been a trilogy, each volume would stand alone on
>> its own right,
>
> LOTR was _actually_ 6 volumes, and none of them stand alone.

Perhaps, but it was really one long novel. And, IMO, is best published as
such. The only reason I can see to have it broken up into 3 (or 4 or 6)
physical books is for ease of toting around.



---
Graham
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136589 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 16:10
Stan Brown  
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:13:05 GMT in rec.arts.books.tolkien, Jette
Goldie favored us with...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:34:34 +0100, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> > decide you do want to read /The Lord of the Rings/, give yourself a
> > good trial of it, say until after the habits and Aragorn have left
> > the Bree village. ^^^^^^
> >
>
> OK, who uses a spell checker, then?

Thanks for catching that. The present spell checker is about the
only feature of Gravity 2.7 that I really don't like. I'll see if I
can fix this manually so that hobbits remain as hobbits.

(In /Letters/, number 25 is a reply from Tolkien to someone writing
under the pen name of "Habit", who claimed that Tolkien didn't
invent the name hobbit.)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136590 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 16:18
Stan Brown  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:23:52 -0700 in rec.arts.books.tolkien, R.
Dan Henry favored us with...
> As an example many are probably familiar with, The Magician's Nephew can
> be read independently of the other Narnia books and presents a
> self-contained story of merit. However, it makes references to things in
> the other Narnia books and it would lose something if one read it first,
> according to the "internal chronological order" arrangement in which one
> can now find the Chronicles of Narnia published.

That change of order, putting Book VI (The Magician's Nephew)
first, was according to Lewis' own wishes or at least with his
approval. I think it was a mistake -- like you, I think it made a
LOT more sense to have at least /The Lion, the Witch, and the
Wardrobe/ before TMN, and possibly all of Books I-IV before.

It's a very powerful technique just to jump into the middle of the
action and fill in the backstory later -- Homer did it in /The
Odyssey/ and Tolkien did it in LotR. I used to suggest new readers
read /The Silmarillion/ first, but I was persuaded that's a bad
idea -- reading Silm later you get the sense of awe from LotR's
hints at antiquity.

It's the same with Narnia -- reading /The Magician's Nephew/ first
would, I think, make the world of the Wardrobe seem much more
humdrum and mundane. Instead of everything seeming fresh and new,
you say, "oh, that wardrobe's going to take her to Narnia".

Lewis did write one real thoroughgoing trilogy that I know of:
Out of the Silent Planet
Perelandra
That Hideous Strength
collectively known as the "Perelandra" trilogy. The character of
Elwin Ransom is the common thread, but the books can quite well be
read independently.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136592 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 16:25
Stan Brown  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:50:20 -0300 in rec.arts.books.tolkien, Derek
Broughton favored us with...
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > If LOTR had actually been a trilogy, each volume would stand alone on
> > its own right,
>
> LOTR was _actually_ 6 volumes, and none of them stand alone.

Actually, not. Many, many novels used to have major divisions
called "books", but that didn't mean literal volumes. LotR is in
that tradition, and has six "books". You're correct that none of
them stands alone (except perhaps the first), but it _is_ true that
each of them has internal coherence. The chapters in Book III have
much more to do with each other than any of them has to do with any
chapter in Book IV. (Book VI is kind of a hybrid.)

> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > That's not a modern/non-modern thing. That's a "novel" versus a "third
> > of a romance that's been chopped into thirds purely as a publishing
> > decision" thing.
>
> No, I don't think so. See my response to Andrew.

Sorry, but Dan is spot on.

LotR was supposed to be one volume, but it was so long that the
publisher feared its price would cut into sales unacceptably. So
Tolkien reluctantly agreed that it could be published as three
volumes, separated by months. The hope was that since Volume I
(Books I and II) would be moderately priced, people would buy it
and then get "hooked".

You can read the history of this in /Letters/.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136593 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 16:27
Stan Brown  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:36 GMT in rec.arts.books.tolkien, Graham
Lockwood favored us with...
[The Lord of the Rings]
> was really one long novel. And, IMO, is best published as
> such. The only reason I can see to have it broken up into 3 (or 4 or 6)
> physical books is for ease of toting around.

I'm finding that's extremely true. I used to have the 1967 HMCo
three-volume boxed set, but I traded it in on the one-volume
Anniversary edition with the Alan Lee illustrations.

I wish I hadn't. The single volume is all right for reference, but
it's just too big to hold comfortably for reading.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136596 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 19:32
Jette Goldie  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:34:55 +0100, the softrat <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote:

> On 20 Sep 2005 16:25:07 -0700, "Andrew F. Donnell"
> <donnellaf [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it assumed that writers should write down to the
>> lowest-common-denominator lazy fools who can't be bothered to pick up
>> more than one book in any particular setting or story arc?
>
> Yew got it, dooode! That's the Murkian Weigh! And the Yew-Kay Weigh.
> An d ....
>
> Dummm ROOLZ!!

Ever notice that when you pick up interesting used books in a second hand
store or charity shop (or get them given to you free by publishers at
Worldcon) they're always the 2nd or 3rd book of a 4 book series?



--
Jette Goldie
jette.goldie [at] gmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wolfette/
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136604 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 22:48
danhenry  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:50:20 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>R. Dan Henry wrote:

>> That's not a modern/non-modern thing. That's a "novel" versus a "third
>> of a romance that's been chopped into thirds purely as a publishing
>> decision" thing.
>
>No, I don't think so. See my response to Andrew.
>>
>> If LOTR had actually been a trilogy, each volume would stand alone on
>> its own right,
>
>LOTR was _actually_ 6 volumes, and none of them stand alone.

No, it is six "books".

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136607 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 23:49
Count Menelvagor  
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:23:52 -0700 in rec.arts.books.tolkien, R.
> Dan Henry favored us with...
> > As an example many are probably familiar with, The Magician's Nephew can
> > be read independently of the other Narnia books and presents a
> > self-contained story of merit. However, it makes references to things in
> > the other Narnia books and it would lose something if one read it first,
> > according to the "internal chronological order" arrangement in which one
> > can now find the Chronicles of Narnia published.
>
> That change of order, putting Book VI (The Magician's Nephew)
> first, was according to Lewis' own wishes or at least with his
> approval. I think it was a mistake -- like you, I think it made a
> LOT more sense to have at least /The Lion, the Witch, and the
> Wardrobe/ before TMN, and possibly all of Books I-IV before.

yah; the new and improved order seems to me inartistic. it imposes a
literalsitic chronological reading at the expense of theme, style, and
atmosphere. to me, magician's nephew always felt like a much *older*
work than LWW -- deeepr, wiser, sadder (if i'm making any sense). it
has the feel of a retrospective. this is quite apart from the fact
that the reference to the wardrobe at the end assumed a reading of LWW.

i've always felt that LWW, PC, and DT belonged more or less together,
and similarly MN and LB.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136608 ] Mi, 21 September 2005 23:54
Christopher Kreuzer  
Count Menelvagor <Menelvagor [at] mailandnews.com> wrote:

<snip>

> i've always felt that LWW, PC, and DT belonged more or less together,
> and similarly MN and LB.

You missed out 'The Horse and His Boy' and 'The Silver Chair'...
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136616 ] Do, 22 September 2005 01:14
Chris Kern  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:50:20 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news [at] pointerstop.ca> posted the following:

>LOTR was _actually_ 6 volumes, and none of them stand alone.

Tolkien didn't introduce the "book"/"volume" separation until he was
well into at least what is now Book IV, if not later.

-Chris
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136617 ] Do, 22 September 2005 01:16
Chris Kern  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:18:34 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> posted the following:

>That change of order, putting Book VI (The Magician's Nephew)
>first, was according to Lewis' own wishes or at least with his
>approval.

AFAIK it's based solely on a letter sent to a fan who asked him if it
was all right to read the books in the "new" order. His response said
something like "I think I prefer your order better", but there was no
subsequent letter to the publishers to revise the order or anything
like that.

-Chris
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136620 ] Do, 22 September 2005 01:54
the softrat  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:36 GMT, Graham Lockwood
<g-ng [at] yeehawgroups.com> wrote:
>
>Perhaps, but it was really one long novel. And, IMO, is best published as
>such. The only reason I can see to have it broken up into 3 (or 4 or 6)
>physical books is for ease of toting around.
>
Nope, Grammy-pootle. It was an attempt to keep each volume under one
guinea each.....

First ya sucker them in with tFotR ( [at] one G.). Then ya sell 'em
another book for one G. a year later. And you give it one heck of a
cliff-hanger ending.....

Finally, over a year later, ya hit 'em up for the third guinea. You
laugh all the way to the bank.

For the BIG bucks, you sucker in the rich American college students
about ten years later.

It's fat city and ornamented waistcoats from then on out.

"Professor Tolkien, if you are so smart, why aren't you rich?"
"Yes, (mumble, mumble) hobbits (mumble, mumble)."

the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
"Will the two hobbits please climb out of the balrog costume?!"
-- Peter Jackson (alleged)
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136621 ] Do, 22 September 2005 01:46
the softrat  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:32:54 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
<jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ever notice that when you pick up interesting used books in a second hand
>store or charity shop (or get them given to you free by publishers at
>Worldcon) they're always the 2nd or 3rd book of a 4 book series?

Yeah. That's why *I* buy first hand books at a cheap bookstore five
years after their first publication. Or ten....

the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
Please don't congregate in groups.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136624 ] Do, 22 September 2005 03:14
donnellaf  
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
>>I've seen similar arguments elsewhere.
>
>
> It's not my argument - that's why my stress on "supposed": I don't like it.

I know it wasn't your argument, and I hope it didn't look like I was
putting words in your mouth.

>>Is this an established literary
>>rule that writers are supposed to fit if they wish to qualify for
>>greatness?
>
>
> I just believe it's an established publishing rule that writers are supposed
> to fit, if they wish to be read at all.

But I don't like it.... Oh well, lots of things in the world I don't
like. No use crying over them....



Andy
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136625 ] Do, 22 September 2005 03:24
donnellaf  
Flame of the West wrote:

> I've never read Harry Potter, but I have heard
> that that later books are so long partly because
> JK recaps what has happened in the previous
> books.

I don't think that is really the case. There is some recapping, but
that is because the plot naturally leads there, or because Harry is
brooding over certain things that happened in the past. There isn't so
much recapping just for the sake of assuming that the reader has
forgotten--that would a Kevin J. Anderson book (I read one where it
seemed that at the beginning of each paragraph he had to go back and
recap everything up to that point, because it was apparently written for
brain-dead 13 year olds; therefore I have avoided any and all other K.
J. Anderson books).

I really like the Potter books--they aren't great literature, but they
are very fun reads, and they can elicit very powerful emotions. I've
found that the series has been continually getting better--the first
couple weren't really anything special, but they have steadily improved.


Andy
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136626 ] Do, 22 September 2005 03:27
donnellaf  
the softrat wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:36 GMT, Graham Lockwood
> <g-ng [at] yeehawgroups.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps, but it was really one long novel. And, IMO, is best published as
>>such. The only reason I can see to have it broken up into 3 (or 4 or 6)
>>physical books is for ease of toting around.
>>
>
> Nope, Grammy-pootle. It was an attempt to keep each volume under one
> guinea each.....
>
> First ya sucker them in with tFotR ( [at] one G.). Then ya sell 'em
> another book for one G. a year later. And you give it one heck of a
> cliff-hanger ending.....
>
> Finally, over a year later, ya hit 'em up for the third guinea. You
> laugh all the way to the bank.

That fool, I wanted to give him even more of my money, but he didn't
write enough!


Andy
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136627 ] Do, 22 September 2005 04:50
danhenry  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:27:05 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:

>I wish I hadn't. The single volume is all right for reference, but
>it's just too big to hold comfortably for reading.

It's excellent for a reading stand, though, or an improvised one. And I
rather like standing for reading aloud, which is naturally the best way
to read Tolkien.

Ideally one would have a one-volume edition, a three-volume set for each
sitting with a book in one's lap (cat in the way optional), and a
paperback set for walking around with. Plus another with wide margins
for annotating.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136629 ] Do, 22 September 2005 05:57
Flame of the West  
the softrat wrote:

>>Ever notice that when you pick up interesting used books in a second hand
>>store or charity shop (or get them given to you free by publishers at
>>Worldcon) they're always the 2nd or 3rd book of a 4 book series?
>
> Yeah. That's why *I* buy first hand books at a cheap bookstore five
> years after their first publication. Or ten....

Recently at a remainder bookstore, I found stacks of
old Book of the Month Club copies of TTT and RotK.
Needless to say, not a copy of FotR in sight.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136630 ] Do, 22 September 2005 05:59
danhenry  
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:18:34 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:23:52 -0700 in rec.arts.books.tolkien, R.
>Dan Henry favored us with...
>> As an example many are probably familiar with, The Magician's Nephew can
>> be read independently of the other Narnia books and presents a
>> self-contained story of merit. However, it makes references to things in
>> the other Narnia books and it would lose something if one read it first,
>> according to the "internal chronological order" arrangement in which one
>> can now find the Chronicles of Narnia published.
>
>That change of order, putting Book VI (The Magician's Nephew)
>first, was according to Lewis' own wishes or at least with his
>approval.

I am aware of that. I think he was wrong. Specifically because it ruins
the way in which it neatly reveals origins of things we are interested
in precisely because they were mysterious in earlier books.

>I think it was a mistake -- like you, I think it made a
>LOT more sense to have at least /The Lion, the Witch, and the
>Wardrobe/ before TMN, and possibly all of Books I-IV before.

BTW, which is your favorite book? Mine's Dawntreader.

>It's a very powerful technique just to jump into the middle of the
>action and fill in the backstory later -- Homer did it in /The
>Odyssey/ and Tolkien did it in LotR. I used to suggest new readers
>read /The Silmarillion/ first, but I was persuaded that's a bad
>idea -- reading Silm later you get the sense of awe from LotR's
>hints at antiquity.

Oh, definitely. Hobbit before LOTR is a good idea, but not Silmarillion.
Although reading the Hobbit after LOTR isn't bad, either, I expect,
unless you hate the "hobbity" opening parts of LOTR. You not only get
more interest in the events of the First Age because of hints in LOTR,
but I imagine it is even harder to orient oneself in the secondary world
without the more friendly hobbit-tour of LOTR first.

The Silmarillion and LOTR don't really constitute a series relationship,
though, as the Silmarillion contains ultrashort version LOTR. It is one
of the real challenges of writing any sort of series fiction to balance
the needs of series fans, casual readers reading in sequence, and
readers who pick up a book without having read all preceding books.
Probably the trickiest act in the art of exposition is cleanly
delivering the backstory needed for stand-alone reading without the
series-readers from getting restless.

>It's the same with Narnia -- reading /The Magician's Nephew/ first
>would, I think, make the world of the Wardrobe seem much more
>humdrum and mundane. Instead of everything seeming fresh and new,
>you say, "oh, that wardrobe's going to take her to Narnia".

That wasn't my first concern, but that's true, too. Narnia is introduced
in a "first time" way in TLTW&TW in a way it isn't elsewhere and it
allows a mysterious and gradual introduction that expresses the wonder
of it in a way that is spoiled by foreknowledge.

Of course, on a re-reading of the Chronicles, internal chronological
order is a reasonable choice and perhaps Lewis had neglected to consider
the first-time reader's different experience in a world by then quite
familiar to him.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: I just watched Fellowship of the rings. [message #136633 ] Do, 22 September 2005 06:09
Flame of the West  
the softrat wrote:

>>I disagree with all three answers you got so far.
>>I recommend you read The Hobbit before starting
>>Fellowship of the Ring. And I strongly urge you to
>>finish the Lord of the Rings books before seeing
>>any more LotR movies!
>>
>
> PPPPTTTTTHHHHHHBBBBBBBPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTTTT!!!!

Nice comeback! Kind of like O'Neill's reply when
someone disagrees with him, but without all the
four-letter "f" words.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Vorheriges Thema:Re: COTW: Index IV. Things
Nächstes Thema:Welcome! FAQs and important information.
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 22:50:40 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10249 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered