The Critics' treatment of Tolkien & Jackson

Black Breathalizer · 02-01-2003, 10:11 AM

I recently read that RottenTomatos.com has names TTT as the best reviewed film of 2002. I think it's interesting how the film version is receiving a level of critical respectability that the book version never received.

Film critics have gushed over Peter Jackson's telling of Tolkien's tale while many of the so-called respected literary critics in the 50s and 60s did not give the author the same treatment. In fact, Tolkien's work was ridiculed in many academic circles. It wasn't until after his death that some in the academic community grudgingly began giving Tolkien his due. But even now, some critics like to make fun of his writing style. More than anything, it was the devotion of its fans -- not the literary elite -- that made LOTR the "book of the century."

It may well be that the high quality of the films will actually help literary critics to better understand and appreciate the books. Who woulda thunk THAT back in 2001?

What do you think?

Millane · 02-01-2003, 10:31 AM

hehehehehe Thunk!!!
meh facts speak better than critics (who can trust people that thunk hehehe that highly of titanic) and it is only behind the bible as most read book of 20th century (in australia it beat the bible)

ohhh Thunk thats nice

sun-star · 02-01-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

It may well be that the high quality of the films will actually help literary critics to better understand and appreciate the books.

Depends what the critics' objections to Tolkien are. As far as I can see, they dislike what one might call its mythical nature, the language in particular. It is also very popular and therefore, in their eyes, unworthy of serious literary analysis. Thirdly, the stereotypical fan puts them off - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about

. So since the film doesn't really change any of those things, I doubt it will change their attitudes. If anything, LOTR becoming more popular among the general reading public will make it less popular among critics. It's certainly a pity, but who cares if critics like LOTR anyway? The high quality of the films has helped ordinary people (like me) understand and appreciate the books more, and that's more important, IMO

.

Lizra · 02-01-2003, 10:35 AM

I don't get that! (first post) I don't read reviews, (being "full of myself" and not caring what others think!

) I would think a BIG part of the reason the movie is getting good reviews, is because the story is so fantastic. I'd bet many of the film critics haven't read the books! The books might not have recieved good reviews years ago because the "style" wasn't popular at that time. All this stuff (published reviews and opinons) is very "manufactured "and "trendy". The film was very well done, and should get good reviews.....but the books are the shining star, and basis for all good things. (In my opinion!

)

Wayfarer · 02-01-2003, 01:14 PM

That simply shows how untrustworthy critics are.

Black Breathalizer · 02-01-2003, 02:05 PM

I think literary critics got hung up on technical aspects of Tolkien's writing and, as a result, focused on individual faults instead of appreciating the beauty of the whole piece.

Come to think about it, you could say the same thing about Jackson's critics.

#1GaMGeeGuRL · 02-01-2003, 02:48 PM

I read somewhere that back then it was a big 'cult' thing. In Tolkien's time period the fact that it was highly accepty by cults gave the works a certain stigma.

Balrog_of_Morgoth · 02-01-2003, 03:43 PM

I am a huge fan of both the books and the movies. I think the movies have definately enhanced the story itself. Yes, there are changes, and some of them major and debatable. But I think they have just made the books even better.

I am relatively well educated regarding Tolkien's works. I have studied them a good deal. Still, for me, the movies have enhanced my vision of Middle Earth greatly. They introduced small details that the reader fails to envision during the reading process. I am re-reading LOTR right now, and it has not diminished the movies in my eyes at all...quite the opposite, actually.

Black Breathalizer · 02-01-2003, 08:06 PM

Balrog_of_Morgoth is my new hero! Well said.

Gwaimir Windgem · 02-01-2003, 08:10 PM

A Balrog, a Hero?

Ah, the world these days...

I firmly consider the books to be better than the movies, and I don't think I will ever stop considering them to be better. Of course, I love the movies, but I don't think they're better than the books.

P.S. BB, I've noticed that recently you've been coming off as much nicer (at least to me), and I want to thank you for it.

Huan · 02-02-2003, 02:03 AM

Critical reception of the movies will not change critical reception of the book, because as far as critics are concerned, these are aples and oranges. Sure, the film critics liked it, will say the book critics, because film is an inherently inferior medium, and LOTR stands out among the subhuman sludge that is film. But LOTR is a book, and it is a fantasy and therefore unworthy of any critical consideration whatsoever. Trust me, I'm in grad school, and I've actually heard these sentiments expressed in class. And furthermore, nothing can change critical reception, because literary critics find the official opinion and stick to it like friggin' velcro.
(I'm a little disaffected with academics and literary critics at the moment, can you tell?

)

Entlover · 02-02-2003, 02:21 AM

Phooey.
Those who can, write.
Those who can't, criticize.

Coney · 02-02-2003, 07:50 AM

IMO the only critic that really counts is Christopher Tolkien himself........but he has been oddly quiet...

The "commercial" critics (i.e. those who sell their opinions) are just another part of the huge Hollywood self-promotion/debasing machine......I've even read a couple of pieces that start with "Although I haven't read LotR..."

Black Breathalizer · 02-02-2003, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I firmly consider the books to be better than the movies, and I don't think I will ever stop considering them to be better. Of course, I love the movies, but I don't think they're better than the books.

The issue isn't which is better...the issue is that the films have received universal critical acclaim as they've come out while the books did not. I think the reason is that while Tolkien's imagination was beyond compare, Jackson brought more technical skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his. As I mentioned above, literary critics never seemed to be able to overlook some of his writing mistakes. But that was to be expected because, unlike Jackson, LOTR was a writing "hobby" to Tolkien.

FrodoFriend · 02-02-2003, 12:55 PM

I generally don't read criticisms either... Who wants to listen to people who make their living poking holes in other people's accomplishments?

BeardofPants · 02-02-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But that was to be expected because, unlike Jackson, LOTR was a writing "hobby" to Tolkien.

Hobby? He was a philologist. It certainly wasn't a hobby; his whole world came to being through the evolution of language.

squinteyedsoutherner · 02-02-2003, 03:32 PM

Writing mistakes?

give me some examples of "Writing mistakes" in the book. Would that be continuity errors like ringwraiths who grow new robes after being burned? Or would that be a dialogue error like "they have turned northeast, they are taking the hobbits to Isengard" let's have some examples please.

Huan · 02-02-2003, 04:56 PM

BB, first off Tolkien employed a great degree of literary technique, and for the most part he knew exactly what he was doing. He was an Oxford professor; he knew his literature. The reason, as I stated, that literary critics pan Tolkien is merely from an instant knee-jerk reaction that if it's fantasy it's not worth even considering. Plus, a lot of them are professors themselves, and can't stand anyone actually making money or achieving popular appeal.

Black Breathalizer · 02-02-2003, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Writing mistakes?

give me some examples of "Writing mistakes" in the book. Would that be continuity errors like ringwraiths who grow new robes after being burned? Or would that be a dialogue error like "they have turned northeast, they are taking the hobbits to Isengard" let's have some examples please.

First off, don't blame the messenger. I am NOT a Tolkien basher any more than I'm a Jackson basher. But I had a horribly smug English professor in college who delighted in making fun of Tolkien the way some of you gleefully attack Peter Jackson's movies. I don't recall all the ones he pointed out to me when I attempted to defend Tolkien's writing in his class. But the one I will always remember is found in "A Long Expected Party." The jerk read the following passage out loud in class to embarrass me and the other Tolkien defenders in the room. It is Tolkien's description of the dragon fireworks at the party:

Quote:

Out flew a red-golden dragon - not life-size, but terribly life-like: fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, may fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion.

In a fantasy about a pre-industrial society, describing a dragon with the term, like an express train is a mistake of "Peter Jacksonian" magnitude.

Black Breathalizer · 02-02-2003, 06:43 PM

double post.

02-01-2003, 10:31 AM	#2
Millane The Dude Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: at the altar of my ego Posts: 1,685	hehehehehe Thunk!!! meh facts speak better than critics (who can trust people that thunk hehehe that highly of titanic) and it is only behind the bible as most read book of 20th century (in australia it beat the bible) ohhh Thunk thats nice __________________ Ill heal your wounds, ill set you free,

02-01-2003, 10:35 AM	#4
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	I don't get that! (first post) I don't read reviews, (being "full of myself" and not caring what others think! ) I would think a BIG part of the reason the movie is getting good reviews, is because the story is so fantastic. I'd bet many of the film critics haven't read the books! The books might not have recieved good reviews years ago because the "style" wasn't popular at that time. All this stuff (published reviews and opinons) is very "manufactured "and "trendy". The film was very well done, and should get good reviews.....but the books are the shining star, and basis for all good things. (In my opinion! ) __________________ Happy Atheist Go Democrats! Last edited by Lizra : 02-01-2003 at 10:36 AM.

02-01-2003, 01:14 PM	#5
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	That simply shows how untrustworthy critics are. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

02-01-2003, 02:05 PM	#6
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	I think literary critics got hung up on technical aspects of Tolkien's writing and, as a result, focused on individual faults instead of appreciating the beauty of the whole piece. Come to think about it, you could say the same thing about Jackson's critics. Last edited by Black Breathalizer : 02-01-2003 at 02:08 PM.

02-01-2003, 02:48 PM	#7
#1GaMGeeGuRL Enting Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: #3 Bagshot Row, Hobbiton, The Shire Posts: 71	I read somewhere that back then it was a big 'cult' thing. In Tolkien's time period the fact that it was highly accepty by cults gave the works a certain stigma. __________________ "When life gives you lemons, clone them and make SUPER LEMONS!!!!!" ~Professor Scudworth LONG LIVE THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE WEE SCARVIES! you'll have to excuse me, i'm not at my best i've been gone for a month i've been drunk since i left there so-called vacations will soon be my death i'm so sick from teh drink i need home for a rest we arrived in december and london was cold so we stayed in thebars along charing cross road we never saw nothin' but brass taps and oak kept a shine on the bar with the sleeves of our coats -chorus- euston station the train journey north in the buffet car we lurched back and forth past odd crooked dykes through yorkshire's green fields we were flung into dance as the train jigged and reeled you'll have to excuse me, i'm not at my best i've been gone for a month i've been drunk since i left there so-called vacations will soon be my death i'm so sick from teh drink i need home for a rest take me home.... by the light of the moon she'd drift through the streets a rare old perfume so seductive and sweet she'd tease us and flirt as the pubs all closed down then walk us on home and deny us a round -chorus- the gas heater's empty, it's damp as a tomb and the spirits we drank are not ghosts in the room i'm knackered again, come on sleep take me soon and don't lift up my head 'till the the twelve bells at noon you'll have to excuse me, i'm not at my best i've been gone for a month i've been drunk since i left there so-called vacations will soon be my death i'm so sick from teh drink i need home for a rest take me home....

02-01-2003, 10:11 AM	#1
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	The Critics' treatment of Tolkien & Jackson I recently read that RottenTomatos.com has names TTT as the best reviewed film of 2002. I think it's interesting how the film version is receiving a level of critical respectability that the book version never received. Film critics have gushed over Peter Jackson's telling of Tolkien's tale while many of the so-called respected literary critics in the 50s and 60s did not give the author the same treatment. In fact, Tolkien's work was ridiculed in many academic circles. It wasn't until after his death that some in the academic community grudgingly began giving Tolkien his due. But even now, some critics like to make fun of his writing style. More than anything, it was the devotion of its fans -- not the literary elite -- that made LOTR the "book of the century." It may well be that the high quality of the films will actually help literary critics to better understand and appreciate the books. Who woulda thunk THAT back in 2001? What do you think? Last edited by Black Breathalizer : 02-01-2003 at 12:29 PM.

02-01-2003, 03:43 PM	#8
Balrog_of_Morgoth Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Parkersburg WV Posts: 110	I am a huge fan of both the books and the movies. I think the movies have definately enhanced the story itself. Yes, there are changes, and some of them major and debatable. But I think they have just made the books even better. I am relatively well educated regarding Tolkien's works. I have studied them a good deal. Still, for me, the movies have enhanced my vision of Middle Earth greatly. They introduced small details that the reader fails to envision during the reading process. I am re-reading LOTR right now, and it has not diminished the movies in my eyes at all...quite the opposite, actually. __________________ Fingolfin: The Mighty Elven Lord who challenged Morgoth to single combat!

02-01-2003, 08:06 PM	#9
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	Balrog_of_Morgoth is my new hero! Well said.

02-01-2003, 08:10 PM	#10
Gwaimir Windgem Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA Posts: 10,820	A Balrog, a Hero? Ah, the world these days... I firmly consider the books to be better than the movies, and I don't think I will ever stop considering them to be better. Of course, I love the movies, but I don't think they're better than the books. P.S. BB, I've noticed that recently you've been coming off as much nicer (at least to me), and I want to thank you for it. __________________ Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle

02-02-2003, 02:03 AM	#11
Huan Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Oxford, MS Posts: 274	Critical reception of the movies will not change critical reception of the book, because as far as critics are concerned, these are aples and oranges. Sure, the film critics liked it, will say the book critics, because film is an inherently inferior medium, and LOTR stands out among the subhuman sludge that is film. But LOTR is a book, and it is a fantasy and therefore unworthy of any critical consideration whatsoever. Trust me, I'm in grad school, and I've actually heard these sentiments expressed in class. And furthermore, nothing can change critical reception, because literary critics find the official opinion and stick to it like friggin' velcro. (I'm a little disaffected with academics and literary critics at the moment, can you tell? )

02-02-2003, 02:21 AM	#12
Entlover Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 463	Phooey. Those who can, write. Those who can't, criticize.

02-02-2003, 07:50 AM	#13
Coney The Buddy Rabbit Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Trapped in the headlights.. Posts: 3,372	IMO the only critic that really counts is Christopher Tolkien himself........but he has been oddly quiet... The "commercial" critics (i.e. those who sell their opinions) are just another part of the huge Hollywood self-promotion/debasing machine......I've even read a couple of pieces that start with "Although I haven't read LotR..." __________________ Blessed are the cracked, they let the light in Beatallica

02-02-2003, 12:55 PM	#15
FrodoFriend Halfwitted Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Eryn Vorn Posts: 1,659	I generally don't read criticisms either... Who wants to listen to people who make their living poking holes in other people's accomplishments? __________________ Fingolfin lives! ... in my finger! The Crossroads of Arda - Warning. Halfwit content. Not appropriate for people with IQ of over 18. The Fellowship of the Message Board Nyáréonié - The Tale of Tears

02-02-2003, 03:32 PM	#17
squinteyedsoutherner Elven Warrior Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 198	Blackbreathalizer Writing mistakes? give me some examples of "Writing mistakes" in the book. Would that be continuity errors like ringwraiths who grow new robes after being burned? Or would that be a dialogue error like "they have turned northeast, they are taking the hobbits to Isengard" let's have some examples please.

02-02-2003, 04:56 PM	#18
Huan Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Oxford, MS Posts: 274	BB, first off Tolkien employed a great degree of literary technique, and for the most part he knew exactly what he was doing. He was an Oxford professor; he knew his literature. The reason, as I stated, that literary critics pan Tolkien is merely from an instant knee-jerk reaction that if it's fantasy it's not worth even considering. Plus, a lot of them are professors themselves, and can't stand anyone actually making money or achieving popular appeal. Last edited by Huan : 02-02-2003 at 04:58 PM.

02-02-2003, 06:43 PM	#20
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	double post.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Research paper on Tolkien	The Telcontarion	Writer's Workshop	10	12-16-2007 12:04 PM
Whats on your Bookshelf?	hectorberlioz	General Literature	135	02-12-2007 07:26 PM
2004 Oscars	Evenstar1400	Lord of the Rings Movies	190	03-14-2004 02:46 PM
Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien	Black Breathalizer	Lord of the Rings Movies	419	11-05-2002 11:05 PM
a little orientation needed	DrFledermaus	The Silmarillion	9	02-12-2001 05:48 AM