[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for posting that article, UnshatteredSilence, and welcome to the Downs. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

For the record, it's my view that JRR Tolkien's books are a laboured reorganisation of Norse myth by a writer who struggled with the sentence structures of English.

It's clear from this that I suffer artistic resistance to mock-antiquated myths which tweely create fake kingdoms ...

Hmm, he's not doing himself any favours with Tolkien fans there. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Mark Lawson chairs a late night art show on the BBC (it used to be called the "Late Show" but it is now, I think, attached to Newsnight). It involves him and various panellists from the academic and arts worlds discussing recent artistic works (ranging from television programmes and films to books and art exhibitions). It is a programme which I generally enjoy when I watch it and I have a fair bit of respect for Mr Lawson and the other regular panellists on the programme, although I frequently disagree with their views.

Although I wholly disagree with his opinion on JRRT's works (and indeed the film adaptations), he is of course right. These books and films are not for everyone. Indeed, the films are likely to be more accessible to a greater majority than the books (which, of course, does not necessarily make them better). My brother, and a good many other people who I consider intelligent and whose views I respect, have no time whatsoever for JRRT's works. Some have expressed similar opinions to those expressed by Mr Lawson. And of course neither they nor Mr Lawson deserve to be vilified for their views. They are entitled to dislike JRRT's works just as much as I am entitled to dislike the works of Dickens. Free speech is a treasure to be greatly valued, and those who seek to shout Mr Lawson down for holding an opinion on JRRT's books which is different from their own do a great disservice to the Professor and his works. I tend to agree with Mr Lawson that JRRT himself would not have appreciated such a reaction.

And, finally, I also agree with Mr Lawson when he says:

At screenings of these, you felt that large parts of the audience had come not in search of enjoyment but to monitor deviation from the original. The directors were widely praised for how close they had stayed to the page. This hostility to interpretation is anti-cinematic. The point of movies is to rip up the words and reassemble them as pictures which may - which should - differ in key details.

I made the mistake outlined in the first sentence above on my first viewing of TTT, and so had some quite serious misgivings about the film. But I thoroughly agree with the sentiment, if not the precise phraseology, of the final sentence. Film adaptations of books are interpretations of them rendered in a wholly different art form and therefore will, almost inevitably, differ in large measure from the books. And, having accepted that, I was able to derive far greater enjoyment from my second viewing of TTT.

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]