[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Boy has this thread confused the you-know-what out of me. Well, judging from The Saucepan Man's post after mine (and the post in the thread about not likeing Arwen in the movies) it seems that I haven't made my definition of 'proper' fans clear.<P>To me, if you have read any of Tolkien's works relating to Middle-earth, and you liked it, you are a proper Tolkien fan. If you love it, or want to read more works relating to ME, or have read more works relating to ME, or any combination of those three, then you are a 'proper' fan, but you are more than that also. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to it, in my eyes, if you fit the definition, then you are a 'proper' Tolkien fan.<P>But you are not if you read Tolkien's works, and do not like them. As long as you have read at least one of his works relating to ME and liked it, then I consider you a 'proper' fan. If you have read more than one, but didn't like one, then you are still a 'proper' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter if you like the movies (animated or live-action)or not, all that matters is the books.<P>What I meant as 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fans is that they weren't properly introduced. Well, you might ask what is properly introduced. To me it is having the story of any ME tale being told to you through reading the books before being told through a movie. You can still be a 'proper' Tolkien fan if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to Tolkien's works, you can be a 'proper' Tolkien fan. But people's tastes can change, and for that matter, so can their status as fans. If they don't like it at first, then they aren't 'proper' fans, but when they do, they are 'proper' fans. And vice versa, it can turn on and off.<P>The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Isn't that a bit unfair on those who were introduced to the books by the films, and on yourself? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, no. I hope this thread will show you what I mean better. I think what you thought I meant was that if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan you are not a 'proper' Tolkien fan. What I mean is that you can be a 'proper' fan even if you weren't introduced properly. That fault is on my part for not being clear enough, sorry.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Would someone who discovers the books when they trip and fall in a library and have LotR stuffed under their head as a pillow be "nor properly introduced"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That would be properly introduced. It was by chance, but your first reading experience is untainted and pure, so you are properly introduced, even if it was by chance. Because, when you rad the book before teh movie, you are properly introduced to that tale in ME. But when you see the movie first, you are not properly introduced because you first saw that tale of ME through someone else's (not Tolkien's) view.<P>So, now do you understand what I mean? Sorry for all the confusion.<P>Birdland<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Huh?...Oh...well, I guess I'm speaking mostly of seeing films first, then running across the book later, or the subject matter of the film will make me seek out the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What I meant was how the story was produced first; through the movie or the book. For example, in LotR, the book came before the movie, but in Star Wars, the movie came before the book. I wasn't asking if you read the book or the movie first. Am I clear now? My fault, sorry for the confusion.