Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark
As am I, Oh sure Jackson helped rekindle a fire inside me(seeing how I had forgotten about the hobbit until the trilogy came out)
But I ask you why must we read "Classics" they're written in old English that unless you take the time as I did. You won't understand.
Tolkien only used two words I did not know the meaning of erfe which I found out means before. and league, which I still don't know how long a league is.
But what I'm saying is many teenagers are turned off by literatre because it is hard to understand. Tolkien is easy(unless you're a BDer we tend to complicate things  ) I think Tolkien would be wonderful. Also in most literature books they only take passages of the tales, well why not just take passages from LOTR on Mount Doom when Sam carries Frodo up the mountain, the bridge of Khazadum...all those wonderous moments that mean something, those that show true courage, friendship, loyalty, and devotion. |
Firstly, I agree that Peter Jackson DID indeed help re-kindle old flames and simultaneously kick-start new ones. I wouldn't replace him for another director.
Second,
What's wrong with Old English Morsul? Trust me there is a whole glossary of archaic words that are constantly used in Tolkien's writing.
I think the challenge in reading classic lit. IS trying to gain understanding. If we didn't have to read it we might as well kill the whole purpose of reading Tolkien. Maybe the reason why Tolkien's themes are easier and more conventional to pick up is because he chooses to use sterotypical characters and themes.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm on your side, but your sounding like you want to eliminate classic lit. and replacing it with ONLY Tolkien.