William Cloud Hickli wrote:
Quote:
|
It's not a question of workability or un-, but rather Christopher's decision to present JRRT's Narn as closely as possible. At the time the Narn was written (1951-56 or 57), Orodreth was still Felagund's brother: the revised genealogy arose later. Introducing elements from other, later writings was the sort of editorial 'meddling' CRT sought to avoid this time around.
|
Good point. And you're right that the fact that he moved the gift of Anglachel indicates that consistency with the '77 was not his supreme principle.
Lindil wrote:
Quote:
|
Overall though it may well be the intro to the Silm that has been needed since 77 for so many folks who didn't or had a hard time 'getting it'.
|
Indeed, it seems to me that the virtue of this publication is that many readers will be exposed to the marvellous Turin saga who otherwise would not have been.
Quote:
|
As for a movie? Please lord NO!
|
You know, I've always thought that the 'Narn'
could make a truly incredible movie; actually it strikes me as being more fit for cinematic adaptation than is LotR. However, I'm quite certain that if such a film were made today in Hollywood it would be a complete disaster. But bring, say, Ingmar Bergman back to life and put it in his hands - now
that would be great cinema.
Edit: Hang on, Ingmar Bergman's still alive!? Shows what I know . . .