[MeddlingMonk]

There's a...well...interesting article about LOTR over at the Guardian's web site. It's hardly surprising anymore that a person would express venomous opinions about LOTR and the people who appreciate it. After all, that's been going on (with increasing feeling, perhaps) since the 1950s. What is a little puzzling is why so much spleen should be vented. It's a common sensical to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. So, why is it that on some subjects (particularly ones which are not literally life or death matters) that certain people need to express what I can only term disdainful hatred for people who happen to have differing opinions? That some (actually, many) people should appreciate LOTR seems to be intolerable to others to such an extent that they must express it in extreme terms is not a little puzzling. I have my own ideas about it, of course, but I'd be interested in seeing other reactions to this article.

[Fairygdmther]

This is a complex article, but is the essence of snobbery. How can you like something that everybody else likes. How cliched! How trite!

How about instead - what fun? He is more interested in belittling kitsch, than LOTR - that's just his most recent target. He does make a point that the The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy were not very easy reading. But he denies that they could be considered good writing. They were masterfully created by Tolkien, who when he was alive would not allow them to be made into movies, for fear they would be trivialized (guess he was right, huh?) They are classics, and have stood the test of time. Oh, maybe they weren't written 200 years ago, but they have stood up through 3 generations as books, and now are brought into excellently made movies, that not only revived the books, but brought the stories to those who could not, or would not wade through the difficult reading. This article is sour grapes, pure and simple. It's not as if they were done in four 20 minute cartoons, the movies were done brilliantly, to a great deal of critical acclaim, and remained true to the Middle Earth specifications. I'm sure Tolkien, himself, would be pleased by the way they turned out, if he were still alive.

[Starflux]

It's not so much about Lord of the Rings as it is about the writer's disdain for people who have not yet lost their inner child. I really think he's just trying to win other people for his stance, while he hasn't even won himself over yet. He knows he is wrong, but with this article he tries to convince himself that he is right. I don't care whether the man likes LotR or not, or thinks if it's literature or not, but what I do mind that he just shoves off all people who like their dose of escapism once in a while as people who "fake emotions" and are all gummy inside.
Well then, stay in your pretty little "real world", where you can express all the bitterness that is inside of you, mister writer sir. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to Middle-Earth, enjoying the company of people who have not yet lost their innocence, wonder and the ability to put aside differences for the common good.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Flux

Well then, stay in your pretty little "real world", where you can express all the bitterness that is inside of you, mister writer sir. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to Middle-Earth, enjoying the company of people who have not yet lost their innocence, wonder and the ability to put aside differences for the common good.

You'll be far happier than he is. People like this think they are being realistic, whereas they are just being sad. Very few really care.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

The man's sphincter back there needs some major adjusting.

[Starflux]

And you feel you're the right man for the job, Trep?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

?!!



Flux

[Curt]

Ooh! That was a bit below the belt.

[Kingzjester]

I would not call LOTR kitsch much for the same reasons why I would NEVER, EVER put Conrad and Joyce in the same sentence - it is stupid to do so. For one, Conrad is illiterate and has a tedious, unreadable style laced with platitudes, while Joyce is uberliterate and has a tedious and unreadable style with no platitudes whatsoever - they are diametrically opposite.

This guy's stance is sortof silly and doesn't manage to evoke any kind of feeling from me, whereas LOTR manages to make a good, if at times rambling and strained, epic as an homage to the conventions of the Norse myth.

[Bard09]

I think the author has some good points on Hollywood, but using LOTR as his main example was a mistake.

Where I agree with the author is that kitsch is totally in vogue right now in filmmaking. It seems every movie nowadays is try to be called an "epic." In being such a Hollywood buzzword, the term is losing its meaning and being trivialized by lesser-quality films.

Where the author got it wrong is that LOTR is one of the few Hollywood films of late to truly be "epic." I think much-better examples would have been Master and Commander, The Last Samurai, or The Matrix: Revolutions. He could have bashed the lack of sincere narratives or the honest expression of human emotion all he wanted in those films.

The fact remains that LOTR is based on book whose plot transcended the traditional Hollywood limitations and appealed to audiences worldwide. By bringing up Joyce or (this appalled me as a dramatist) Eugene O'Neil, it is not going to change the fact that people... plain and simple... enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.

I say to the author: quit being resentful and find another movie to fight Hollywood with.