I was actually talking to my wife about that tonight - I was thinking Bruce Willis (her vote was for Hugh Jackman or Russel Crowe), just because he seems to exude the attitude that would be perfect for the role. Well, anything would be better that that wretched abortion that was Antonio Banderas' "13th Warrior".
Jeez, you're right - that is evil! What sort of global conspiracy would be evil enough for him to mastermind, what position of power could he gain where no one would suspect him and from there, plan to take over the world? Oh well, guess we'll never know.
Nothing is good enough for the average slashdot nerd. Frank Herbert and JRR Tolkien could come back from the dead as the new demi-gods of writing, and people on Slashdot would still say "Worst. Resurrection. Ever."
Well, if it were a really good book, it would be the anti-christ. People the world over would say "Should have seen that one coming. Hitler youth, resembled Palpatine - what more did we need? Rivers turning to blood?!"
He comes off as quite the opposite of a glory hog, to the point of putting his father on a pedestal (which may have its own problems, but hey).
You're like "OMG CT SUX! I WANT MORE READABLE STORIES ZOMG!!11!" and while that's fine to have as a desire, you also have to temper it with the realization that the odds of it getting f'ed up would be far higher were it anyone else. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to read "Happy Hobbits Go Dragon Hunting!" or find some other book on the stands one day that is a horrific violation of JRR's work: "And then the Balrogs rocked out!"
Dude, he's 80 years old. I highly doubt he's greedy. He (as far as I can tell) doesn't do any actual writing, but rather editing, and given his father's incredibly messy and convoluted notes and considering CT's experience with his father's work, I don't think you could find anyone who could do a better job.
Donaldson and White are both good, and Gaiman is excellent, but none of them are anything close to JRR in terms of literary backgrounds and depth of talent.
Basically, you have one guy who knows the inside of his father's head better than anyone else and is the best editor you're going to get on the subject. No other writer would have the experience or the background to do it justice, and no editor would have enough context.
Basically, while CT isn't the world's best editor, he's as good as you're going to get given the circumstances. Anyone else would do a worse job, in one way or another - maybe X editor would make it more readable, but screw up some minute detail and maybe X writing would make it more interesting and digestible, but be a hack in the end in comparison.
In the long run, you want the person who will do it the best justice and CT is the only candidate when it comes to that. Anyone else would be worse, in one fashion or another. Would you really want that?
Yes, actually. It comes off as someone trying to put together obscure bits that JRR Tolkien never finished, which... Well, is exactly what it is. It reads like the work of a son who wanted to finish the great many things his father left unfinished after an incredible literary career.
While he may not have the talent his father did, the stuff is better published than unpublished, if only to get a look at the ideas Tolkien had, which are the same feelings as the vast majority of all the other Tolkien fans from what I can tell.
As to greedy - if you were the son of JRR Tolkien, who in the hell would you trust with his writings? Who in the world could do it justice? Anyone? I can't think of a single author that could come close to JRR in terms of knowledge, talent and style. Better his son than anyone else.
I actually read all of them (and he started getting rather far out with some of the stuff) and they definitely have a different style and feel than his son's work.
While his son's writing isn't crap, it's not as well put together as his father's, nor is it in the same style. While I'm not sure that you can really fault him for the last one, the first one you can. His son's works read like most modern sci-fi stuff, and while it is really fascinating to get a look at the pre-history behind the books (even if he just invented it), it isn't something I'm going to read twice.
More or less, his son isn't horrendously bad like many accuse him of, but neither is he as good a writer as his father (on Dune, anyway) and in the end, that's what makes the new Dune books a 'read once, that's cool' and never read again work vs. what his father wrote - 'read once, wow, read again years later, wow, read again a decade later, wow'.
It's one thing to say his writing is bad - that is a literary opinion.
On the other hand, saying that he's a 'greedy asshole' who 'hoards manuscripts' and that he didn't like the LoTR movies because 'Jackson wouldn't let him [Christopher Tolkien] butcher it' is just a nasty ad hominem attack.
Why should anyone take your 'literary opinion' with anything more than the smallest grain of salt in existence, given your obvious personal bias against Tolkien's son? Sure, you can say that CT is scum of the world, but don't try to disguise your baseless accusation as a 'literary opinion'.
Personally, any epic tale that has the main character tearing someone's arm off and beating them to death with it has got some serious literary merit in my book!
The story really does have a lot going for it, once you get past the language barrier - Old English really does read a lot more like German than modern English. It was one of the coolest books I'd ever read - full of adventure with tons of gruesome details (like the whole 'tearing someone's arm off and beating them to death with it' bit) that you'd never seen in any other piece of classical literature aside from Dante's Inferno.
The end kind of sucked, as I recall, but as far as adventure and ass-kicking go, Beowulf was one of the best, if not *the* best.
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually talking to my wife about that tonight - I was thinking Bruce Willis (her vote was for Hugh Jackman or Russel Crowe), just because he seems to exude the attitude that would be perfect for the role. Well, anything would be better that that wretched abortion that was Antonio Banderas' "13th Warrior".
I was actually waiting for the "talk like a normal human being day".
I was just commenting that you were not the only one to notice that particular contradiction.
Er... You're really not going to get any closer, unless you want to go over the notes yourself.
Jeez, you're right - that is evil! What sort of global conspiracy would be evil enough for him to mastermind, what position of power could he gain where no one would suspect him and from there, plan to take over the world? Oh well, guess we'll never know.
Funny that. For a guy who hated allegory so much, his writing speaks to quite the opposite.
Christopher Tolkien supports DRM? Bastard! /Proceeds to tear up copy of "Lost Tales"
If you mention that he wasn't a fan of it, that just really kills the funny.
Who hasn't?!
Ulysses was funny?
Nothing is good enough for the average slashdot nerd. Frank Herbert and JRR Tolkien could come back from the dead as the new demi-gods of writing, and people on Slashdot would still say "Worst. Resurrection. Ever."
Well, if it were a really good book, it would be the anti-christ. People the world over would say "Should have seen that one coming. Hitler youth, resembled Palpatine - what more did we need? Rivers turning to blood?!"
He comes off as quite the opposite of a glory hog, to the point of putting his father on a pedestal (which may have its own problems, but hey).
You're like "OMG CT SUX! I WANT MORE READABLE STORIES ZOMG!!11!" and while that's fine to have as a desire, you also have to temper it with the realization that the odds of it getting f'ed up would be far higher were it anyone else. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to read "Happy Hobbits Go Dragon Hunting!" or find some other book on the stands one day that is a horrific violation of JRR's work: "And then the Balrogs rocked out!"
Did not know that. Loved that book. Would it have gone unpublished otherwise?
Yeah. If people think the Silmarillion was dry... It's fascinating, don't get me wrong, but... Wow can that man go on about who begat who begat who.
Shhhh... Not until he overthrows the college of cardinals.
In this case though, it went unpublished due to time constraints.
Dude, he's 80 years old. I highly doubt he's greedy. He (as far as I can tell) doesn't do any actual writing, but rather editing, and given his father's incredibly messy and convoluted notes and considering CT's experience with his father's work, I don't think you could find anyone who could do a better job.
Donaldson and White are both good, and Gaiman is excellent, but none of them are anything close to JRR in terms of literary backgrounds and depth of talent.
Basically, you have one guy who knows the inside of his father's head better than anyone else and is the best editor you're going to get on the subject. No other writer would have the experience or the background to do it justice, and no editor would have enough context.
Basically, while CT isn't the world's best editor, he's as good as you're going to get given the circumstances. Anyone else would do a worse job, in one way or another - maybe X editor would make it more readable, but screw up some minute detail and maybe X writing would make it more interesting and digestible, but be a hack in the end in comparison.
In the long run, you want the person who will do it the best justice and CT is the only candidate when it comes to that. Anyone else would be worse, in one fashion or another. Would you really want that?
Did he base it on his father's notes?
Yes, actually. It comes off as someone trying to put together obscure bits that JRR Tolkien never finished, which... Well, is exactly what it is. It reads like the work of a son who wanted to finish the great many things his father left unfinished after an incredible literary career.
While he may not have the talent his father did, the stuff is better published than unpublished, if only to get a look at the ideas Tolkien had, which are the same feelings as the vast majority of all the other Tolkien fans from what I can tell.
As to greedy - if you were the son of JRR Tolkien, who in the hell would you trust with his writings? Who in the world could do it justice? Anyone? I can't think of a single author that could come close to JRR in terms of knowledge, talent and style. Better his son than anyone else.
I actually read all of them (and he started getting rather far out with some of the stuff) and they definitely have a different style and feel than his son's work.
While his son's writing isn't crap, it's not as well put together as his father's, nor is it in the same style. While I'm not sure that you can really fault him for the last one, the first one you can. His son's works read like most modern sci-fi stuff, and while it is really fascinating to get a look at the pre-history behind the books (even if he just invented it), it isn't something I'm going to read twice.
More or less, his son isn't horrendously bad like many accuse him of, but neither is he as good a writer as his father (on Dune, anyway) and in the end, that's what makes the new Dune books a 'read once, that's cool' and never read again work vs. what his father wrote - 'read once, wow, read again years later, wow, read again a decade later, wow'.
Didn't you see the movie?
It's one thing to say his writing is bad - that is a literary opinion.
On the other hand, saying that he's a 'greedy asshole' who 'hoards manuscripts' and that he didn't like the LoTR movies because 'Jackson wouldn't let him [Christopher Tolkien] butcher it' is just a nasty ad hominem attack.
Why should anyone take your 'literary opinion' with anything more than the smallest grain of salt in existence, given your obvious personal bias against Tolkien's son? Sure, you can say that CT is scum of the world, but don't try to disguise your baseless accusation as a 'literary opinion'.
Personally, any epic tale that has the main character tearing someone's arm off and beating them to death with it has got some serious literary merit in my book!
The story really does have a lot going for it, once you get past the language barrier - Old English really does read a lot more like German than modern English. It was one of the coolest books I'd ever read - full of adventure with tons of gruesome details (like the whole 'tearing someone's arm off and beating them to death with it' bit) that you'd never seen in any other piece of classical literature aside from Dante's Inferno.
The end kind of sucked, as I recall, but as far as adventure and ass-kicking go, Beowulf was one of the best, if not *the* best.
That's quite the accusation. Do you have anything to support it besides an opinion?