At 10:39 PM 8/29/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:
>David, I don't think I've ever accused you of being "rabidly
I have e-mails from you referring to my "misguided rants" and "wild
ravings": those are exact quotes from you. You didn't use the actual word
"rabid", but that seems a close enough paraphrase of what you did say. Of
course, what prompted these outbursts from you were close analyses of
Jackson, which for some reason is more than some people seem to be able to
handle. And they've never been purely anti-Jackson. I once told you I
consider it my bounden duty to point it out to you every time I say
something positive about Jackson for the next three years, and it hasn't
been three years yet.
>I do share Tom Shippey's view that the films, despite
>their many flaws, have brought many new readers to the book. Some of
>them were college students of mine and some of them turned out to be
>rather good undergraduate scholars. Is that bad?
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike: we already went over this the last time this
subject came up, and my response to that argument is, once again, contained
in the very post to which you are replying! I wrote:
"Tom Shippey expressed rather lukewarm feelings in his essay on the
subject, hoping mostly that the films will lead readers to the book. (Which
they have. But that doesn't make the films good. Ralph Bakshi led readers
to the book. Rankin-Bass led readers to the book. Even Leonard Nimoy
singing 'The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins' led readers to the book.)"