Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tolkien Vs. The Critics In 1954

Posted by michael on from the ents-go-to-war dept.

meganthom writes "The BBC is running a story about how the critics viewed The Fellowship of the Ring, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its publication... One critic's view: 'To have created so enthralling an epic-romance, with its own mythology, with such diversity of scene and character, such imaginative largess in invention and description, and such supernatural meaning underlying the wealth of incident is a most remarkable feat.' One of the most insightful of all the comments at the time was provided by the Spectator's Mr. Hughes, who said, 'I think we should be well advised to remember that what we have before us now is the first volume of a larger work... and be willing to suspend judgement... until we have seen the whole... The pleasure to be derived from this first volume is a pleasure not to be missed.'"

7 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. fp by LCookie · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Yeah

  2. FP LOLZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Yip yip hurray!

  3. Oh yes children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It stinks!

  4. Nice by vivekg · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Ah nice to read this :)

    --
    The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
  5. IBook is taken. by dj245 · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    The author of the article compares Ebooks with Ipods. Certainly I can picture people sitting around with Ipod like Apple devices being all snobby like the Apple lovers tend to do. If Apple made a reader, undoubtable it would be prosperous and profitable. But what would they call it? Ibook is taken.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  6. The Two Towers by static0verdrive · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone else see that internet petition about renaming the two towers for "sensitivity" purposes?? I cracked up when some guy said "It's obvious this guy named it that to get under our skin..." - but, as this article says, it was written in 1954 ya shmuck!

    --
    ========
    77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
  7. I know this is unpopular... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ...but the books sucked and so did the movies. Badly. The movies did not stand on their own, the acting was wooden, they were too effects heavy. There's a variety of other problems, but those are the main ones. At the very least, there were way better movies last year than LOTR (Lost in Translation leaps immediately to mind).

    I'm posting AC because I don't want to destroy my karma. The fact that I don't like LOTR really riles people, for some reason. But I'm totally not trolling. I just think that the books and movies sucked.