|
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
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Tolkien fandom article
| Tolkien fandom article [message #232037] |
Do, 09 März 2006 23:42 |
|
I was looking up some stuff on the web, and came across this article
about Tolkien fandom. Some interesting bits, and AFT and RABT get a
mention for the Balrog wings debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232039 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 02:26 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> I was looking up some stuff on the web, and came across this article
> about Tolkien fandom. Some interesting bits, and AFT and RABT get a
> mention for the Balrog wings debate.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
"The Purists a.k.a. The Old Guard: Fans of LotR who felt
the movies strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere
as good as the books."
This is clearly wrong, as it combines two different point
of views into one single cathegory. The correct definition
of Purists would be those that think the movies should
deviate from the book either as little as possible, or not
at all, and if that was not possible, then should not have
been made in the first place. To think that the movies
strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere as good,
is just common sense and has nothing to do with Purism.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232047 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 10:13 |
|
In message <news:duqkku$kkp$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi> Morgil
<morestelx [at] hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
Enjoyable article, surely. ;-)
Thanks, Christopher.
(I am, naturally, a tiny bit offended that the Danish Tolkien Society
didn't get a mention <G>)
> "The Purists a.k.a. The Old Guard: Fans of LotR who felt
> the movies strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere
> as good as the books."
>
> This is clearly wrong, as it combines two different point
> of views into one single cathegory.
"note that the terminology varies but the basic groups are
the same"
> The correct definition of Purists would be those that think
> the movies should deviate from the book either as little as
> possible, or not at all, and if that was not possible, then
> should not have been made in the first place.
If I understand your position right, you think that there should be a
distinction between those who loathed the films a priori and those
who did so a posteriori?
An overview article is always going to make some simplifications, and
for the purpose of this article, which doesn't try to explain the
workings of Tolkien (on-line) fandom for the members, I can accept
that the present text is sufficient; going further into the details
of opinion found among fans would, IMO, only confuse non-fans
unnecessarily.
> To think that the movies strayed too far from the books, and
> are nowhere as good, is just common sense and has nothing to
> do with Purism.
I'd put it down to being a matter of taste rather than sense, whether
common or rare.
To think that the films are, on the whole, nowhere as good as the
books is, I would imagine, by far the most common opinion among those
of us who read the books long before Jackson announced he'd be making
a set of films based on them. So much that I think it could easily be
called the consensus in that group.
To think that the films strayed too far from the books is more
debatable -- what exactly is, for instance, meant by '/too/ far':
when is a change 'stretching it' and when is it going 'too far', and
are we speaking whether individual changes went too far, or the film
trilogy as a whole?
There are a few (less than a handful) changes that I cannot bear, and
which still make me irrational, but on the whole I do enjoy watching
the films (though the RotK least), so I suppose that I, on the whole,
find that the films stay within the limits of what I can stand (which
would make it, for me, 'stretching it to breaking point' rather than
'going too far'). I am still angry at Jackson, though, for being such
a liar to us and thereby setting my expectations unrealistically high
;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232048 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 13:03 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message <news:duqkku$kkp$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi> Morgil
> <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>>"The Purists a.k.a. The Old Guard: Fans of LotR who felt
>>the movies strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere
>>as good as the books."
>>
>>This is clearly wrong, as it combines two different point
>>of views into one single cathegory.
>
>
> "note that the terminology varies but the basic groups are
> the same"
>
>
>>The correct definition of Purists would be those that think
>>the movies should deviate from the book either as little as
>>possible, or not at all, and if that was not possible, then
>>should not have been made in the first place.
>
>
> If I understand your position right, you think that there should be a
> distinction between those who loathed the films a priori and those
> who did so a posteriori?
Not exactly - more of a distinction between those who think
the movies suck and those who think they suck because they
are not faithful enough. In my experience, this difference
can be overwhealmingly difficult for many movie fans to
comprehend, so it should be made clear as possible.
> An overview article is always going to make some simplifications, and
> for the purpose of this article, which doesn't try to explain the
> workings of Tolkien (on-line) fandom for the members, I can accept
> that the present text is sufficient; going further into the details
> of opinion found among fans would, IMO, only confuse non-fans
> unnecessarily.
But it's not a simplification, it's just plain incorrect,
because it labels anyone who dislikes the movie as 'purist'.
In contrast, when talking about the Bakshi movie, the article
states that "serious fans" had numerous problems with this
movie. If it suits the Bakshi critics, why not just use the
same term of those who have similar problems with PJ movies?
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232049 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 14:23 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer arranged shapes to form:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
There is no mention of Middle Earth RPGers, which surely should be included
if "People who have seen the films and never read the books" can be
included as /Tolkien/ Fans, then so can RPGers.
In fact the entire article has a subtle pro-Jacksonite / TORN bias - is the
ordering of Internal Categories placing movies /before/ the books really
appropriate to *Tolkien* fandom? It seems to me that nomenclature isn't
really a big issue to most Tolkien fans, and as the terms aren't required
to understand the rest of the article, the entire of the Terminology is
just an attempt to get some to fans to identify themselves with the Ringers
brand.
Once the TORN online marketing division has moved on, I've no doubt some
simple re-editing can restore balance to the article.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232050 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 14:50 |
|
Morgil wrote:
> But it's not a simplification, it's just plain incorrect,
> because it labels anyone who dislikes the movie as 'purist'.
For once, Morgil's right. He'd have disliked the movies whether or not he
was a purist. Whether or not he'd even heard of Tolkien...
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232052 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 16:13 |
|
In message <news:3ilet2gjqico.ydjfpom1urfb.dlg [at] 40tude.net>
Davémon <"davémon" [at] nospam.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> In fact the entire article has a subtle pro-Jacksonite / TORN bias
Subtle? ;-)
One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
old dinosaurs, rather laughable, but mostly harmless . . .
It reminds me of why I dislike most web-fora.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232053 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 17:51 |
|
Morgil wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> > I was looking up some stuff on the web, and came across this article
> > about Tolkien fandom. Some interesting bits, and AFT and RABT get a
> > mention for the Balrog wings debate.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
>
> "The Purists a.k.a. The Old Guard: Fans of LotR who felt
> the movies strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere
> as good as the books."
>
It's a pretty narrow viewpoint designed to denigrate anybody not
prepared to rubber stamp the hollywood line. Or was it bollywood? Can't
remember now. But seriously, this is the problem with lumping people
into categories, it is always insulting and never reflects the actual
points of view put forward. For example, those that point out that
since the movie did not reflect the themes and characters portrayed in
the book, it's not really the same story at all - so the movies are
irrelevant.
> This is clearly wrong, as it combines two different point
> of views into one single cathegory. The correct definition
> of Purists would be those that think the movies should
> deviate from the book either as little as possible, or not
> at all, and if that was not possible, then should not have
> been made in the first place. To think that the movies
> strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere as good,
> is just common sense and has nothing to do with Purism.
I find it hard to believe that there are many people who both like the
book and think the movies are just as good/better. Certainly there have
been people in this forum arguing that, but not many.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232054 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 18:03 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Sam's the little guy <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>> This is clearly wrong, as it combines two different point
>> of views into one single cathegory. The correct definition
>> of Purists would be those that think the movies should
>> deviate from the book either as little as possible, or not
>> at all, and if that was not possible, then should not have
>> been made in the first place. To think that the movies
>> strayed too far from the books, and are nowhere as good,
>> is just common sense and has nothing to do with Purism.
> I find it hard to believe that there are many people who both like the
> book and think the movies are just as good/better. Certainly there have
> been people in this forum arguing that, but not many.
I doubt this forum is all that representative of Tolkien fandom
actually. Most people who ever read Tolkien read "Lord of the Rings"
and "The Hobbit" when in high school or earlier, and associate it with
"Dungeons and Dragons", and never read anything else by Tolkien.
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232055 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 19:11 |
|
stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Sam's the little guy <samdekat [at] hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I find it hard to believe that there are many people who both like the
>> book and think the movies are just as good/better. Certainly there have
>> been people in this forum arguing that, but not many.
Well, I'm one of the most vocal in support of the movies, and _I'd_ never
want to suggest they're "as good or better" than the books. otoh, they're
great movies.
> I doubt this forum is all that representative of Tolkien fandom
> actually. Most people who ever read Tolkien read "Lord of the Rings"
> and "The Hobbit" when in high school or earlier, and associate it with
> "Dungeons and Dragons", and never read anything else by Tolkien.
LOL. You snipped this from Sam's post:
> It's a pretty narrow viewpoint designed to denigrate anybody not
> prepared to rubber stamp the hollywood line. Or was it bollywood? Can't
> remember now. But seriously, this is the problem with lumping people
> into categories, it is always insulting and never reflects the actual
> points of view put forward. For example, those that point out that
> since the movie did not reflect the themes and characters portrayed in
> the book, it's not really the same story at all - so the movies are
> irrelevant.
....which is exactly what you just did. I never played D&D with anybody who
wasn't extremely well read in Fantasy fiction, so Tolkien isn't associated
with D&D by many of the actual players, and if you didn't _play_ D&D you're
rather unlikely to know how much Gygax & Arneson borrowed from Tolkien.
And, fwiw, I don't think you can denigrate anybody for not reading anything
but The Bobbit & LOTR. Much of the other work that was actually published
by JRR Tolkien is not very available (I think I only got one other new, the
two or three others I found in used book stores), and criticizing someone
for not going on to read the works published by Christopher Tolkien is like
criticizing a Presbyterian for reading the Bible and not going on to learn
the Catholic catechism.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232056 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 19:51 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Sam's the little guy <samdekat [at] hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I find it hard to believe that there are many people who both like the
>>> book and think the movies are just as good/better. Certainly there have
>>> been people in this forum arguing that, but not many.
> Well, I'm one of the most vocal in support of the movies, and _I'd_ never
> want to suggest they're "as good or better" than the books. otoh, they're
> great movies.
>
>> I doubt this forum is all that representative of Tolkien fandom
>> actually. Most people who ever read Tolkien read "Lord of the Rings"
>> and "The Hobbit" when in high school or earlier, and associate it with
>> "Dungeons and Dragons", and never read anything else by Tolkien.
> LOL. You snipped this from Sam's post:
I snipped it on purpose, as it had nothing to do with my point.
My point was that this forum is not representative of the
people who are "fans" of "Lord of the Rings".
>> It's a pretty narrow viewpoint designed to denigrate anybody not
>> prepared to rubber stamp the hollywood line. Or was it bollywood? Can't
>> remember now. But seriously, this is the problem with lumping people
>> into categories, it is always insulting and never reflects the actual
>> points of view put forward. For example, those that point out that
>> since the movie did not reflect the themes and characters portrayed in
>> the book, it's not really the same story at all - so the movies are
>> irrelevant.
> ...which is exactly what you just did. I never played D&D with anybody who
> wasn't extremely well read in Fantasy fiction, so Tolkien isn't associated
> with D&D by many of the actual players, and if you didn't _play_ D&D you're
> rather unlikely to know how much Gygax & Arneson borrowed from Tolkien.
No, I did not. I did not make any value judgements, and I
did not denigrate anybody. There is nothing wrong with the fact
that most people who read "Lord of the Rings" read it when children,
or that it is associated with, and was the inspiration for,
"Dungeons and Dragons".
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232058 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 20:04 |
|
Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:l2s8e3-f5l.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca:
>
> And, fwiw, I don't think you can denigrate anybody for not reading
> anything but The Bobbit
Presumably this is an edition of The Hobbit, severely edited for
length.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232059 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 20:37 |
|
Yuk Tang <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9782C1DD8ED0Ejimlaker2yahoocom [at] 130.133.1.4:
> Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in
> news:l2s8e3-f5l.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca:
>>
>> And, fwiw, I don't think you can denigrate anybody for not reading
>> anything but The Bobbit
>
> Presumably this is an edition of The Hobbit, severely edited for
> length.
"Snipped", even.
--
Mästerkatten
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232060 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 21:04 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
> old dinosaurs
Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in
the worst way. :(
Michelle
Flutist
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232061 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 21:07 |
|
stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>>> I doubt this forum is all that representative of Tolkien fandom
>>> actually. Most people who ever read Tolkien read "Lord of the Rings"
>>> and "The Hobbit" when in high school or earlier, and associate it with
>>> "Dungeons and Dragons", and never read anything else by Tolkien.
>
....
>> ...which is exactly what you just did. I never played D&D with anybody
>> who wasn't extremely well read in Fantasy fiction, so Tolkien isn't
>> associated with D&D by many of the actual players, and if you didn't
>> _play_ D&D you're rather unlikely to know how much Gygax & Arneson
>> borrowed from Tolkien.
>
> No, I did not. I did not make any value judgements, and I
> did not denigrate anybody. There is nothing wrong with the fact
> that most people who read "Lord of the Rings" read it when children,
> or that it is associated with, and was the inspiration for,
> "Dungeons and Dragons".
There would be nothing wrong with it if it was a "fact". Unfortunately, it
isn't. You said "most people ... associate it with Dungeons and Dragons".
That's a value judgement, and untrue. Even your revision is only partly
true (if I concede that most people read it as children and we include all
teenagers as children - I doubt that many people read LOTR before their
teenage years). In any case, it's not largely associated with D&D and it
was _not_ the inspiration for the game. It was the inspiration for many of
the monsters in the game.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232062 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 21:21 |
|
In article <3ilet2gjqico.ydjfpom1urfb.dlg [at] 40tude.net>,
Davémon <"davémon" [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Once the TORN online marketing division has moved on, I've no doubt some
>simple re-editing can restore balance to the article.
>
There's a TORN Online Marketing Division? First I've heard of it.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232063 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 21:33 |
|
In article <Hb2Qf.33307$wl.20110 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I was looking up some stuff on the web, and came across this article
>about Tolkien fandom. Some interesting bits, and AFT and RABT get a
>mention for the Balrog wings debate.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
Not a bad article, but there is far too much emphasis on dividing
fandom into discrete categories, and putting names to everything
(e.g., 'Ringers', which notwithstanding the DVD, cannot claim
to anything remotely resembling the universal recognizability
of 'Trekkies'). I suppose that is the nature of such articles,
but it creates the image of a patchwork quilt with large panels,
rather than a tapestry of many interests and approaches to the
subject.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232064 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 22:22 |
|
"Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in news:4f2da$4411dabd
$4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
>> old dinosaurs
>
> Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
> fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in
> the worst way. :(
I'm dinosaur enough not to know what LJ stands for.
--
Mästerkatten
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232065 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 22:41 |
|
Mästerkatten wrote:
> "Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in news:4f2da$4411dabd
> $4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com:
>
>
>>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>>>One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
>>>old dinosaurs
>>
>>Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
>>fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in
>>the worst way. :(
>
>
> I'm dinosaur enough not to know what LJ stands for.
LiveJournal. The whole blogging thing.
Michelle
Flutist
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232066 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 23:15 |
|
"Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in message
news:4f2da$4411dabd$4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com...
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of old
>> dinosaurs
>
> Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
> fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in the
> worst way. :(
Some folk - especially those of us old dinosaurs who would prefer
not to *go the way of the dinosaurs* - have a web presence in both
usenet and LJ.
--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
("reply to" is spamblocked)
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232067 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 23:22 |
|
"Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in news:215f9$4411f15c
$4127760a$18462 [at] hpnx.com:
> Mästerkatten wrote:
>> "Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in news:4f2da$4411dabd
>> $4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com:
>>
>>
>>>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>>>>One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
>>>>old dinosaurs
>>>
>>>Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
>>>fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in
>>>the worst way. :(
>>
>>
>> I'm dinosaur enough not to know what LJ stands for.
>
> LiveJournal. The whole blogging thing.
Thanks, I've not heard the term before. We just use words derived from
"blog" over here. I.e. "blogosfären", the blogosphere.
--
Mästerkatten
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232068 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 23:30 |
|
Jette Goldie wrote:
>
> Some folk - especially those of us old dinosaurs who would prefer
> not to *go the way of the dinosaurs* - have a web presence in both
> usenet and LJ.
I don't want to learn yet another whole new method of doing what I
have been doing for so long. :p
Michelle
Flutist
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232069 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 23:48 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>>>> I doubt this forum is all that representative of Tolkien fandom
>>>> actually. Most people who ever read Tolkien read "Lord of the Rings"
>>>> and "The Hobbit" when in high school or earlier, and associate it with
>>>> "Dungeons and Dragons", and never read anything else by Tolkien.
>>
> ...
>>> ...which is exactly what you just did. I never played D&D with anybody
>>> who wasn't extremely well read in Fantasy fiction, so Tolkien isn't
>>> associated with D&D by many of the actual players, and if you didn't
>>> _play_ D&D you're rather unlikely to know how much Gygax & Arneson
>>> borrowed from Tolkien.
>>
>> No, I did not. I did not make any value judgements, and I
>> did not denigrate anybody. There is nothing wrong with the fact
>> that most people who read "Lord of the Rings" read it when children,
>> or that it is associated with, and was the inspiration for,
>> "Dungeons and Dragons".
> There would be nothing wrong with it if it was a "fact". Unfortunately, it
> isn't. You said "most people ... associate it with Dungeons and Dragons".
> That's a value judgement, and untrue.
How is it untrue? There is a strong association between "Lord
of the Rings" and D&D and role playing games in general. Just
look at the pop culture references.
> Even your revision is only partly
> true (if I concede that most people read it as children and we include all
> teenagers as children - I doubt that many people read LOTR before their
> teenage years).
What revision? Lots of people read it before their teen years, and
most people read it when in high school or before. Do you really think
most people read it when in their twenties or older?
> In any case, it's not largely associated with D&D and it
> was _not_ the inspiration for the game. It was the inspiration for many of
> the monsters in the game.
> --
> derek
It was the inspiration for all the character classes, all the
races, a bunch of the items and weapons, and all sorts of
other stuff. Anyway if you were to ask your typical person if
they thought D&D and "Lord of the Rings" were related, do you
really think they would say no?
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232070 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 00:18 |
|
In message <news:4f2da$4411dabd$4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com>
"Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a
>> group of old dinosaurs
>
> Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are.
The funny thing is that the only aspect where it fits is the text-only
interface. In most other aspects usenet is technologically more
advanced than most of the web-sites (distributed service is, for
instance, built-in to usenet).
> Especially those of us not fleeing Usenet for LJ.
I am proud to say that it took me 10 s to realise that you may have
meant 'Livejournals' (that being the only guess I have)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum ishi krimpatul.
- Tolkien in The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232071 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 00:30 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Davémon <"davémon" [at] nospam.com> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer arranged shapes to form:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_fandom
> In fact the entire article has a subtle pro-Jacksonite / TORN bias - is the
> ordering of Internal Categories placing movies /before/ the books really
> appropriate to *Tolkien* fandom? It seems to me that nomenclature isn't
> really a big issue to most Tolkien fans, and as the terms aren't required
> to understand the rest of the article, the entire of the Terminology is
> just an attempt to get some to fans to identify themselves with the Ringers
> brand.
> Once the TORN online marketing division has moved on, I've no doubt some
> simple re-editing can restore balance to the article.
Indeed, maybe I shouldn't mention it, but... anyone can
edit articles on wikipedia, anytime. I edited an article not
too long ago (on a different topic) and the changes stuck.
--Jamie. (Celebrating (?) 20 years on Usenet!)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
[at] csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232072 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 00:40 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> The funny thing is that the only aspect where it fits is the text-only
> interface. In most other aspects usenet is technologically more
> advanced than most of the web-sites (distributed service is, for
> instance, built-in to usenet).
I really dislike the mostly-clunky interfaces for communication that
are used on web pages. However, I appear to be outnumbered by 90% of
the users on the Internet. :p
> I am proud to say that it took me 10 s to realise that you may have
> meant 'Livejournals' (that being the only guess I have)
I'm glad to hear that.
Michelle
Flutist
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232076 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 04:27 |
|
Jamie Andrews; real address [at] bottom of message wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Dav=E9mon <"dav=E9mon" [at] nospam.com> wrote:
> > Christopher Kreuzer arranged shapes to form:
><snip>
> Indeed, maybe I shouldn't mention it, but... anyone can
> edit articles on wikipedia, anytime. I edited an article not
> too long ago (on a different topic) and the changes stuck.
>
> --Jamie. (Celebrating (?) 20 years on Usenet!)
> andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail addres=
s=2E
> [at] csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
Yes. Anyone can edit any post, as far as I know, and the edits aren't
checked by anyone, but rather updated fairly instantly. One would
think this would lead to all sort of trolling/flame wars/misinformation
but, strangely, it doesn't seem to.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232077 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 04:33 |
|
stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> What revision? Lots of people read it before their teen years, and
> most people read it when in high school or before. Do you really think
> most people read it when in their twenties or older?
How can anyone speak for the majority of fans (ie - when they read the
books, what forum is a good indicator of the majority of fans etc)? Is
there some sort of demographic study about Tolkien fans?
>
> > In any case, it's not largely associated with D&D and it
> > was _not_ the inspiration for the game. It was the inspiration for many of
> > the monsters in the game.
> > --
> > derek
>
> It was the inspiration for all the character classes, all the
> races, a bunch of the items and weapons, and all sorts of
> other stuff. Anyway if you were to ask your typical person if
> they thought D&D and "Lord of the Rings" were related, do you
> really think they would say no?
According to the wikipedia article on D&D, Gygax maintains he was not
influenced by Tolkien very much at all:
"Influences
The fantasy game Dungeons & Dragons, designed by Gary Gygax and Dave
Arneson, evolved in the early 1970s from the Chainmail system of
wargaming rules by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren. The game was influenced
by mythology, pulp fiction, and contemporary fantasy authors of the
1960s and 1970s.
The presence of halflings, elves, dwarves, half-elves, orcs, dragons
and the like often draw comparisons to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien,
although Gygax maintains that he was influenced very little by The Lord
of the Rings, stating that he included these elements as a marketing
move to draw on the then-popularity of the work. Other influences,
according to the 1977 edition of the Dungeon Master's Guide, include
the works of Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, A. Merritt, H.P.
Lovecraft, Jack Vance, Fritz Leiber, L. Sprague de Camp, Michael
Moorcock, Roger Zelazny, and Poul Anderson."
> Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232079 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 08:26 |
|
"stevehim [at] yahoo.com" <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1142047990.095528.145760 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> How can anyone speak for the majority of fans (ie - when they read
> the books, what forum is a good indicator of the majority of fans
> etc)? Is there some sort of demographic study about Tolkien fans?
Most of the denizens of the newsgroups are saddos with no life,
although this may have more to do with usenet than with Tolkien.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232081 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 11:41 |
|
In message <news:durpu2$808$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> If I understand your position right,
[...]
>
> Not exactly
Ah, I misunderstood you then. Sorry.
> more of a distinction between those who think the movies suck
> and those who think they suck because they are not faithful
> enough.
In a less biased article, I might have given it the benefit of the
doubt, but in this case, I would agree that it does seem an attempt
(not necessarily deliberate) to disregard the idea that the films can
be evaluated as 'bad' simply on their merits as films.
That said, I know that I would be completely unable to hold such an
objective opinion about any adaptation of Tolkien's works: I would
always compare them to my reading of Tolkien's books and include the
deviations from Tolkien's texts as one of the metrics of quality. If
the author feels likewise, then one might forgive him that he seems
unable to imagine that fans of the books could base a negative opinion
of the films on other than their appreciation of the books.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it
shouldn't be ours.
-- Peter Jackson, Film-FotR, Extended ed. DVD
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232082 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 12:12 |
|
Michelle J. Haines <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote:
> Jette Goldie wrote:
>>
>> Some folk - especially those of us old dinosaurs who would prefer
>> not to *go the way of the dinosaurs* - have a web presence in both
>> usenet and LJ.
>
> I don't want to learn yet another whole new method of doing what I
> have been doing for so long. :p
Agreed. I did look at LiveJournals and blogging, and was briefly tempted
(and still may be). But there are so many different types and options
(though some are rather badly designed). I found it a bit overwhelming.
Same for those photo-sharing websites. In the end, I found myself
retreating to what I knew best - simple text posts with an efficient
threading system (ie. Usenet and not web-based bulletin boards or
blogs).
What I find more tempting is to build up that old thing called a
website, and collect various links and writings together. But it takes
time.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232083 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 12:26 |
|
Yuk Tang <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> "stevehim [at] yahoo.com" <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1142047990.095528.145760 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> How can anyone speak for the majority of fans (ie - when they read
>> the books, what forum is a good indicator of the majority of fans
>> etc)? Is there some sort of demographic study about Tolkien fans?
>
> Most of the denizens of the newsgroups are saddos with no life,
> although this may have more to do with usenet than with Tolkien.
You've reminded me of something about Tolkien fandom history that I read
in a fanzine very recently (arrived in the post this morning), which
admirably sums this up:
"But the vast majority of fans, in these days as in those, aren't the
ones on the message boards, or at conventions, or in fan groups, but
regular or occasional readers, getting on with their lives."
But I guess, by definition, this is a silent majority. So it is probably
best to draw a clear distinction between readers and fandom, or at least
define fans as those active in a community inspired by and drawn
together by Tolkien and his works. Then the "silent majority" would be
just "readers". This silent majority would form a third division of the
film audiences.
These three divisions would be: fans (those who have read the book and
are active in a community related to the book), readers (those who have
read the books but aren't active in a community related to the book),
and viewers (those viewing the films who hadn't read the book and are
not active in a community related to the book - though some may become
active in communities related to the films, and eventually be drawn to
the book side of things).
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232084 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 12:42 |
|
Michelle J. Haines wrote:
> Jette Goldie wrote:
>> Some folk - especially those of us old dinosaurs who would prefer
>> not to *go the way of the dinosaurs* - have a web presence in
>> both usenet and LJ.
> I don't want to learn yet another whole new method of doing what I
> have been doing for so long. :p
But it isn't the same, is it? A live journal, a weblog, that is one
person speaking and others commenting, right? This here is a
community. Here everybody speaks and nobody listens. I prefer that.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232085 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 12:54 |
|
"Taemon" <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> wrote in news:47frdnFffkv4U1 [at] individual.net:
[snip]
> Here everybody speaks and nobody listens. I prefer that.
LOL!
--
Mästerkatten
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232087 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 14:14 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> These three divisions would be: fans (those who have read the book and
> are active in a community related to the book), readers (those who have
> read the books but aren't active in a community related to the book),
> and viewers (those viewing the films who hadn't read the book and are
> not active in a community related to the book - though some may become
> active in communities related to the films, and eventually be drawn to
> the book side of things).
>
> Christopher
>
There are additional possible permutations beyond those you've
suggested. Some have read the books, some have seen the movies, some
have done both. Not all groups will be equally represented nor will they
be equally involved in various forms of reflection upon the books or the
movies.
Pete H
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232088 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 21:09 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in
> news:l2s8e3-f5l.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca:
>>
>> And, fwiw, I don't think you can denigrate anybody for not reading
>> anything but The Bobbit
>
> Presumably this is an edition of The Hobbit, severely edited for
> length.
>
oops :-) I do edit my posts, but the font on this screen is just a little
too small - even reading your snipped version of what I wrote, it still
looked like "Hobbit". My optometrist tells me I need reading glasses. I
resist.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232089 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 16:51 |
|
Mästerkatten wrote:
> "Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in news:4f2da$4411dabd
> $4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com:
>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>>> One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
>>> old dinosaurs
>>
>> Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
>> fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in
>> the worst way. :(
>
> I'm dinosaur enough not to know what LJ stands for.
>
Linux Journal.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232090 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 16:54 |
|
stevehim [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> According to the wikipedia article on D&D, Gygax maintains he was not
> influenced by Tolkien very much at all:
>
Having played the game all the way from its "Chainmail" routes, I would tend
to believe that, though taking anything Gary Gygax says at face value tends
to be risky.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232091 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 17:47 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> > stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>> What revision? Lots of people read it before their teen years, and
>> most people read it when in high school or before. Do you really think
>> most people read it when in their twenties or older?
> How can anyone speak for the majority of fans (ie - when they read the
> books, what forum is a good indicator of the majority of fans etc)? Is
> there some sort of demographic study about Tolkien fans?
Noone can speak for the majority of fans, but you can look at
all the evidence out there to get a good idea of the many
different types of fans and their relative numbers.
>>
>> > In any case, it's not largely associated with D&D and it
>> > was _not_ the inspiration for the game. It was the inspiration for many of
>> > the monsters in the game.
>> > --
>> > derek
>>
>> It was the inspiration for all the character classes, all the
>> races, a bunch of the items and weapons, and all sorts of
>> other stuff. Anyway if you were to ask your typical person if
>> they thought D&D and "Lord of the Rings" were related, do you
>> really think they would say no?
> According to the wikipedia article on D&D, Gygax maintains he was not
> influenced by Tolkien very much at all:
> "Influences
> The fantasy game Dungeons & Dragons, designed by Gary Gygax and Dave
> Arneson, evolved in the early 1970s from the Chainmail system of
> wargaming rules by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren. The game was influenced
> by mythology, pulp fiction, and contemporary fantasy authors of the
> 1960s and 1970s.
Nearly all contemporary fantasy of the 60s and 70s owed a
great debt to Tolkien.
> The presence of halflings, elves, dwarves, half-elves, orcs, dragons
> and the like often draw comparisons to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien,
Their presence should not just draw comparisons. Halflings
(or hobbits as they were called in the early D&D material before
the legal objections) were Tolkien's invention, as were orcs, and the
elves, dwarves and half-elves were based on Tolkien's versions.
The original game only had four character races : human, dwarf, hobbit, and
elf. Just what you need to make a fellowship of some sort. :)
> although Gygax maintains that he was influenced very little by The Lord
> of the Rings, stating that he included these elements as a marketing
> move to draw on the then-popularity of the work.
Well someone there was influenced by Tolkien. I remember in the
blue basic book it describes a "Hold Door" spell, and how
powerful creatures, such as Balrogs could negate the spell.
I wonder where they got that idea from? :)
> Other influences,
> according to the 1977 edition of the Dungeon Master's Guide, include
> the works of Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, A. Merritt, H.P.
> Lovecraft, Jack Vance, Fritz Leiber, L. Sprague de Camp, Michael
> Moorcock, Roger Zelazny, and Poul Anderson."
Yes there are other influences, but the fundamental look
of the game from very early on was very Tolkienesque. I
always found it amusing that in that list of influences
Tolkien is in small print, whereas the "important" influences
were in large print. I have always assumed that whatever
legal action the Tolkien estate threatened Gygax and company
created a lot of bad feelings.
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: Tolkien fandom article [message #232092 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 17:53 |
|
"Mästerkatten" <nopspam [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9782E3CF489BE19283305 [at] 130.133.1.4...
> "Michelle J. Haines" <mhaines [at] nanc.com> wrote in news:4f2da$4411dabd
> $4127760a$8531 [at] hpnx.com:
>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>>> One does get the impression that those people on usenet is a group of
>>> old dinosaurs
>>
>> Hate to break it to you, but we kinda are. Especially those of us not
>> fleeing Usenet for LJ. That's killing some of my favorite groups in
>> the worst way. :(
>
> I'm dinosaur enough not to know what LJ stands for.
>
Live Journal.
In other word, a blog site.
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
--
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk ("reply to" is spamblocked)
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kitties.html
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 14:16:20 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06202 Sekunden |
