The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún: Pre- and Reviews

[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.