Quote:
|
Are you thinking of the same magazine?
|
Yep…
this product.
I saw the commercial for this product. Actually it looks more like a collection of blister packs, rather than a magazine. True, it is clearly aimed at beginners, but that doesn’t necessarily imply children. I got the impression that the commercial targeted younger people as well, but that isn’t an issue so long as it doesn’t target any one below the age of 12 (the recommended age limit on the product is 12+).
Quote:
|
I do not like this kind of thing because it makes the books look cheap, stupid and well, geeky. Not the gameing. The advert. I hate it how people make LOTR sound like that. It deprives so many people of reading it, getting into the real depth of the book.
|
Assuming that the advertisement made the books look cheap, stupid and geeky,
The Two Towers stayed at the top of the box office sales for something like four or five weeks (not sure, for all I know it could still be there). I seriously doubt that this product or its advertisements are going to take anything away from the Tolkien mania already out there. If anything an increase in advertising, even bad advertising, will only help to get the Tolkien name disseminated even more.
I, however, don’t think it made the books look stupid or cheap. The commercial, like the game, is based on the movies, not the books. One can argue that the movies make the books look stupid or cheap. It’s a matter of aesthetic taste. As far as it being “geeky,” I guess the commercial fits my preconceived notion of geeky. However, being a geek, myself, I will be the first stand up for the rights of geeks everywhere to envision and interpret the LotR with as much freedom and relevancy as any star quarterback or lead cheerleader. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
If this commercial stops someone from reading the books, it indicates that they are to some degree incapable of critical thinking; they are unable to separate commercial from reality. If good advertising indicates consumer spending in tota, then no one would ever buy a used car! If they don’t read the books… well, their lose. Seeing as how LotR was the book of the century, I’m not going to sweat it.
As concerns the “real depth” of the books, once again you broach the aesthetic. A quick look at the books section is enough to demonstrate that there are as many interpretations of the “real depth” of these books as there are people who read them. The only thing that disturbs me is someone who comes along claiming to be able to determine what that “real depth” is. I don’t even think the professor, himself, would be able to answer that question. There are those who find in the books the philosophical center of our modern existence, and then there are others who find only a quaint tale to read before going to bed at night. I’m sure for a few, the books (or the movies), are nothing more than great scenery for a battle game. This does nothing to take away from the books, but only illustrates the enduring fecundity of the professor’s work.
Narmo, Tolkien also called elves, gnomes in the early stages. He never stopped revising his mythology, and the material in the published Silm belongs to a given stage of revision that is not necessarily Tolkien’s final word. See the Rivised Silm section on this forum. As you will see it gets rather complicated. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]