I will sell myself long (is there such an expression or did I just invent something new?
)
I consider myself
Old-School Book Fan, even though I was born in 1978 and my Tolkien reading started in 1989 (the Hobbit and Smith of Wotton Major, both mysteriously found on a bookshelf, everybody in the family denying buying them when questioned. But I know 'twas my granny who bought them)
The rationale to be found here:
Tolkien Middle Age Club
Honestly, I suppose I meet requirements - I did not know about Bakshi version, and that cartoon of Hobbit don't remember by whom till much later, and when first asking for Silm77 and HoME (1994 or 95, same granny) to be bought for me in Germany, where she was going for her health's reasons, I expected to get something finished, probably what happened after, or what happened before, but in no way drafts and comments - more about Sam and Frodo, or Bilbo, and Gandalf.
Later, when I've read all of them and a bit more (Niggle, Giles and company), the thought of movies came in. Movies? I often imagined what a movie may have been done out of those wonderful books, and always concluded 'it were impossible, for it must be perfect'.
But lo!
They are already shooting, and release is by Christmas! You should be joking? Nope, I've seen it on TV, they are shooting!
Ah, unlike, Nurumaiel (excellent post (#63 of the current thread), my compliments)
I did not like the movies at first.
That was wrong, this was a lie, the whole piece of that was missing. Probably, I wanted to see the movie so much I was not inclined to forgive slightest imperfections. But I wanted it strongly for the books' sake.
But now, I consider it as a piece of art in its own right. Not entirely unrelated to the books, of course, but independent I still prefer to read my books, but I suppose a lot of people prefer reading Tolkien's verse, per instance, to my
ReVerse - as both me (heh, self-confidence is the thing I never knew the lack of) and PJ are doing the same thing, to an extent - we are sub-sub-creating. I'll make myself more clear - we take somebody else's work and base ours on it. It may be argued that Tolkien did the same - basing his books on this and on that, but he has the wider base, his sources are less known, and skill is far greater. To an extent, his is the thing new, original, not eclectic, (sub-creation with one sub), ours - consequent (sub-sub-creation with two subs)
It does not mean the
sub-sub thingy is bad in itself. But by definition it is A. Not the same thing. B Of less value as original (in a sense it is not original idea, it may of course be in a sense of skill - suppose PJ based his movies not on books but on Bakshi version - the result would be better in a sense - contrived with more skill, but worse - not original, sub-sub-created) Or, another analogy - the first man who invented painting is a lot more original, in one sense, than all, per instance, cubists or whoever, though his skill is crude compared to theirs
But I feel I stray in my own thoughts, let me state a conclusion before I get completely lost. Basically, it comes down to:
I appreciate the movies, but I love the books. Movies did not change my appreciation of the books, and of the
Two Frodos the printed one is the stronger.