The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún: Pre- and Reviews

[Mithalwen]

The books were enduringly popular before the films came out - LOTR was voted book of the century in the UK before and The Hobbit is one of the booksellers old faithfuls....

Yes the films probably did bring new readers - I seldom go to the cinema these days (logistical nightmare)and I can't be the only person who coughed up the cash for the love of Tolkien rather than an appreciation of the works of Peter Jackson. No one ever seems to consider mind that the films may have benefitted from a strong pre-existing Tolkien fanbase....

I am glad if the films meant that old books were reissued and new ones published but the films aren't the reason I buy them - I waited a couple of decades to get my mitts on the Road goes ever on and to complete my HoME.

Tolkien bashing is terribly fashionable amongst the British Intelligentsia and they love to use the films as another stick to bash him with. Tolkien never expected everyone to like his work and nor do I, but when critics make basic errors of fact and gear their review to an irresistible pun you do have to suspect lazy journalism rather than objective reviewing. One of the reviewers of CoH said that Thingol was the silliest name in all Tolkien thereby proving just how little he must have read

[Lalaith]

but he is writing for a national newspaper

Shippey is writing for the Times which is also a national newspaper.
I've no problem with a reviewer saying the book's mass-market targeting might be misguided given rather scholarly niche of the subject matter. However, when he starts trying to give a literary response to the poetry the it becomes rather painful:

Thanks to the rhythm you can hear the approaching horses.

I've seen better from 14-year-olds.
And then...

It is some kind of achievement to bulk up the equivalent of 500 Twitter messages to 377 pages but there is no disguising the fact that everyone involved is simply flogging a dead Norse.

What the hell has Twitter got to do with anything?

[Kent2010]

No one ever seems to consider mind that the films may have benefitted from a strong pre-existing Tolkien fanbase....
-Mithalwen

I have and I do realize that Hollywood, long before Jackson, had intentions to cash-in on Tolkien's success.

But my point about Sanderson's review is exactly what you bring up:

I am glad if the films meant that old books were reissued and new ones published but the films aren't the reason I buy them - I waited a couple of decades to get my mitts on the Road goes ever on and to complete my HoME.

That is also a fact we have to realize, the movies were extremely successful and Sanderson basically argues that if the movies were not successful, contributing to the sustaining (and arguably increase) of Tolkien's popularity, would this book have come out now? Maybe he is wrong, but it is not an entirely unfounded, or insignificant opinion.

Beyond assuming the film fanbase would be left confused by the book, he doesn't use the movies to bash the books. That make the review at least worthy of conversation and debate, and that is why I didn't understand why it has been easily discounted.

It can't be held up to the level of Shippey, because this is Shippey's area of expertise and he always gives worthy, honest reviews, as he did for the movies. It is a superficial review, but what can one expect when you write a review for a newspaper. Ink costs money, and you are expected to state your point and move on, there is no luxury to provide an in-depth thoughtful review.

What Sanderson brought up was a reasonable question and logical opinion that the movie fan base will probably not like the book - because it is not like LOTR and it could be confusing. He comes off sounding condescending in the first paragraph, but he gave his review and brought up some things I thought were worthy to mention. And he did not even have to revert to making "Turin" jabs.

Edit:

Shippey is writing for the Times which is also a national newspaper.
-Lalaith

But the Times has a different readership and when Tom Shippey is asked to review something about Tolkien, you expect exactly what he gave - there is no disagreement, he did write a worthy review. I was just trying to understand why the other review was quickly discounted, when I found it brought up some important questions, the delivery ehh, but I did find it relevant.

I've seen better from 14-year-olds.

But he was complimenting that part.

[Mithalwen]

Most of the later works were issued pre-film (Silmarillion, UT, HoME...). I don't see that this one would not have been issued without the films though maybe with a lot less fuss.

The Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper and has a huge circulation (and I am a subscriber!) - it should at least get its facts right.... slightly disturbing considering it's main current field of activity...

[Kent2010]

The Telegraph is a broadsheet newspaper and has a huge circulation (and I am a subscriber!) - it should at least get its facts right.... slightly disturbing considering it's main current field of activity...
-Mithalwen

It's probably better than the Record Courier or Kent Stater that are my primary options out here. Maybe that's why I see the points with Sanderson, it looks juvenile compared to Shippey, but compared to the Courier it is a stroke of literary genius.

[Mithalwen]

The Telegraph is the biggest selling "quality paper" with an average daily circulation of over 840,000 - ok some of them probably get it mainly for the crossword, Matt, and the sport coverage, but it is big enough for some accuracy to be expected.

[davem]

Not many reviews of S&G worth reading so far. Certainly, John Garth's http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6193162.ece is very good & Christopher Tolkien's Q&A is a gift http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009...rd-gudrun-poem.