Live data from Hacker News

W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

lithub.com

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#181
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m old and tried re-reading it recently and the low number of female characters and voices is really jarring now. YMMV. There’s so much I haven’t yet read I just moved on.

[flagged]

I have fond memories of reading this when I was a teenager, it's a pretty grand story and universe. To further elucidate and paraphrase what other commenters have said about the other article posted about reading, it's just not what I am ready to read now.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#183
I am Elizabeth K. spahn If you are considering doing an online financial investment, BTC, WLD, ETH, and such, consider doing a full background check on the brokers you will work with. Better safe than sorry. When I sorted out mystroushack666@cyber-wizard.com I was giving up. I had lost my savings to fraudsters. In comparison, other hackers were asking for huge money to offer me help. But MYSTERIOUS HACKER came through for me. Try them out and get their service, you can also reach out on telegram at +15625539611 And again, be safe than sorry

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#184
post #78
post #30

Currently listening to the LOTR audiobooks narrated by Andy Serkis. Highly recommended. His characters are heavily influenced by Peter Jackson's movies; it put me off a bit at first, but I've really come to like it now.

The Serkis ones are good, but I really love the old Rob Inglis versions. Someone described them as the closest thing to Tolkien himself reading the books. Surprisingly I think some of his voices (eg, Gandalf) do match the vibe of the films better; even his Gollum isn't too far off.

I haven't heard Serkis's narration, but it's hard to beat Inglis. I certainly wouldn't object to narration influenced by Jackson's films -- though I have my share of problems with Jackson's adaptation, I think he did a fine job of casting and directing.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#185
post #17

It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. It was one of the happiest parts of life - to be able to read the books and venture into that world. It's been spoiled for me by the ridiculous movies like The Hobbit (holy god, Peter Jackson turned Dwarves into ridiculous comedy clowns, covered Radagast with birdshit) , the endless licensed garbage and whilst The Lord of The Rings movie was quite good it h…

Honestly I think any LOTR fan should be so grateful for those movies. It could have gone wrong in so many ways. At one point it was supposed to be a single movie. It could have deviated completely from the books, it could have been super cheaply made. Remember, the books didn't have a big pop culture presence at the time. Fortunately, Jackson and others involved were really passionate about doing it right, and convin…

My biggest issues were the total butchering of the timeline Jackson made to move make the Battle of Helm's deep happen. The whole trek from Meduseld, the warg attack, Aragorn's near-death, and the march of Saruman's orcs all happened in the same day and night, I can even ignore the barrenness of the Pellenor Fields (those should all be farmland!) and even dropping the Scouring Of The Shire. Other than those flaws, I thought the movies were pretty good.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#186
post #12

It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. It was one of the happiest parts of life - to be able to read the books and venture into that world. It's been spoiled for me by the ridiculous movies like The Hobbit (holy god, Peter Jackson turned Dwarves into ridiculous comedy clowns, covered Radagast with birdshit) , the endless licensed garbage and whilst The Lord of The Rings movie was quite good it h…

If you don't like the recent commercial depictions of the LotR series… don't watch them? Of course you have the right to criticize and complain about them. But to let their existence "spoil" your enjoyment of the original works seems excessive. The original works were not somehow changed by the creation of new works, and so neither should your ability to enjoy them change.

As Stephen King said, no adaptation replaces (or ruins, or improves) the original. No matter what they've done to The Stand (multiple times), the original is still there on the bookshelf.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher had no say; JRR sold the movie (and some other) rights ~1970.

In his letters there's a comment: "Stanley & I have agreed on our policy : Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations." I don't think it was explicitly stated there, but I think it is clear they went for "cash". Though I recall some of his letters saying that the unexpected success of LotR meant that he wished he'd retired earlier. It was clear…

Not cash either. I think they sold for ~100,000 pounds.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#189
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's changed is we've as a culture realized that age doesn't automatically bestow wisdom. That's no new realization, but a continuing pattern, generation after generation. The youth of the 1960s took that idea much further than today's kids. 'Every generation thinks they invented sex.'

I'm not really talking about the current generation (especially since I'm not a part of it). I'm talking along longer timespans as a longer process. Hundreds to thousands of years. The old being wise goes back a long time, and we didn't just realize it's bullshit yesterday.

Fair enough, but the mistake of (some of) the young is to call it bullshit - first they think it's scripture (which it is to younger children, and which they need to believe to feel safe) and then, when they discover that older people are flawed humans, they think it's all bullshit.

It's neither. Older people often do know many things that younger people don't yet, but older people are very human too.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#190
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, while the great old powers were waging fruitless war, it was the little people who struck the decisive blow, so perhaps it’s a lesson for our time of how both bottom-up and top-down can collaborate.

Yes, but in Tolkien it was little white cis males. As can be seen from the recent television adaptation, a myth for our time requires the involvement of, if not the leading role for, women and BIPOC in that struggle. Obviously Tolkien will still have an appeal for people interested in old literature, but it is hard to say that it is the myth for our time with its distinct concerns.

I don't see the little hobbit as a 'man' or as 'white', but as a small creature of good nature that is innocent enough to carry the greatest of burdens.
Post reply on HN