The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún: Pre- and Reviews

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Kent2010

I am not understanding the issue people are having with Sanderson's critique. Compared to Shippey's it is pretty juvenile, but they are writing to two different audiences.

For whom is Sanderson writing, exactly? Usually book reviews are not so impertinent. The book reviews in my local paper, the Detroit Free Press, are certainly not on par with the New York Times, but they too have a different audience; however, the Free Press' reviews are merely more concise and generic, not jocose and insincere. It would seem to me that Mr. Sanderson is misguided regarding the audience for 'Sigurd'. The book's appeal is certainly not for the average film fan, anymore than a republishing of Tolkien's Beowulf translation would be. In a banal effort to be witty, Sanderson missed the point completely.

Originally Posted by Kent2010

Sanderson mentions Jackson twice, he does not "continually" drop Jackson's name. He brings up film's success in the beginning and at the end makes a statement that refers to the Jackson 'fan franchise' probably going to be confused by the two stories. I don't like his tone in the first paragraph, but overall his review does bring up a poignant point.

Peter Jackson is the first person mentioned in the piece, and receives primary mention in the conclusion of the review. Go back to your Essay Writing 101 class, and you will find that, from a strictly technical standpoint, the piece is about Jackson and not Tolkien. J.R.R. Tolkien is not even mentioned in the introduction, nor is he mentioned in the conclusion, which is a summation of the writer's points. In any case, Sanderson seems to believe that 'Sigurd' would not have been published if it weren't for the films. He seems to have overlooked The Silmarillion (1978) and the 12 volume HoMe series (1983-1996), both hugely popular and neither requiring cross-pollination from the films to find a wide readership.