- Dec 30, 2013View SourceI like being called a purist in this matter. It is the only aspect of my besmirched life and personality that fits that word! And 'pure' is a good word -- I like it much better than either 'sophisticated' or 'adulterated.'And I too am sick unto death with the adulteratedists who don't understand how disturbing it is that the majority if JRRT's characters are changed in their very essences by Jackson. It's so wrong, and, to me, a strong Greek Orthodox Christian who hesitates to use this word, it borders on being evil.Grace
On Monday, December 30, 2013, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
Exactly so, David. Part of what makes things so frustrating for us (dismissively-so-called) “purists" is that the films’ defenders so completely misunderstand just what are our actual criticisms of the films! These criticisms in fact have little-to-nothing-at-all to do with the addition of an Elf-character — though they certainly have something to do with how little the character of the films’ Elves has to do with that of Tolkien’s Elves….CarlOn Dec 30, 2013, at 12:01 AM, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
It's amusing, but it's not by, for, or of purists. Look at the credits at the end: they're all Jackson devotees. This is a Jackson fans' mistaken impression, or caricature at best, of what purists' beef with the films might be.
From: John Rateliff
Sent: Dec 29, 2013 7:44 PM
To: "Mythsoc (email@example.com)"
Subject: [mythsoc] a ditty for the purists
Here's a link someone sent me a while back that MythSoc folks might enjoy, especially those who object to Jackson's changes in his latest film adaptation.Enjoy!--John R.