Re: Jackson's Recreation of Tolkien's Myth
> Sure, transformations of mythology are an interesting topic. ShippeyYes, I would certainly agree.
> discusses transformations of medieval stories in one of his books. But he
> notes that later versions tend to be poorer than earlier ones.
> That is to say, Jackson wrote what he wrote because he wanted to, or heI agree with you here, too.
> thought people would like it. So does every other fanwriter. Jackson's is
> not a vision with any more significance to our time than that of any other
> punter who rewrites Tolkien.
>> This isn't meant to incite another series of screeds from the Jackson hatersPoint taken, David. I wasn't thinking of your messages when I said this, FWIW; but regardless, this was dismissive of me, so I take back "screed" with my apologies. :)
>> -- although bring them on, if it makes you feel better; I don't mind them --
> Nice way to casually dismiss the carefully written and deeply felt
> observations of those who disagree with you, Jason.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]