At 08:43 PM 12/21/2002 , David S Bratman wrote:
>At 09:28 PM 12/20/2002 -0500, Stolzi wrote:
>>I've been thinking about this and wondering how many of the new readers will
>>bog down in what a friend of mine calls "That danged Old Forest."
>Especially if they've seen the movie and are hence expecting something
>quicker-paced. Yes, I'd like to hear from first-time readers.
I've talked to a first-time teenaged reader, son of friends of mine. After
seeing PJ's FR, he read FR and TT the books, then saw TT the movie.
He found that encountering FR movie-first, and TT book-first, gave him very
different reactions. He found that reading TT before seeing the movie
rather spoiled the film for him, because he could see everything Jackson
left out and did wrong.
Whereas seeing the film of FR before reading the book turned the book into
a revelation of delight for him. Remembering my own experience with
Dickens, I asked, "Didn't the language put you off at all? What about all
those chapters of Frodo settling into Farmer Maggot's house, Crickhollow,
Tom Bombadil's house, before he even gets to Bree - didn't that make you
impatient?" No, he said, he enjoyed them for themselves, and kept on
through them because he knew what was coming later on.
He's now determined not to touch RK until after he's seen the film. I
forgot to ask how he can sit there for a year with Frodo captured by the
Morgul-orcs and not be tempted to read on and see what happens next. That
need to wait drove people wild when TT was first published, and then RK was
delayed from its original scheduled publication (because Tolkien was still
tinkering with the Appendices).
- David Bratman
PS: Sparkplug, don't bother. I already told you I'm taking up your offer
not to read you any more. I deleted your e-mails unread, dumped my trash
buffer so I wouldn't even be tempted to retrieve them, and have now added
you to my kill file so I won't have to see any more of your inanities. I'm