At 08:40 AM 9/2/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:
>if in years past I sprinkled a little
>kerosene on the blaze, I don't intend to again, thanks all the same.
I'm not asking you to. I'm hoping for a recognition of the problems.
>One way to look at the Jackson films, it being Sunday morning and all,
>is as -felix peccatum-, rather like Eve biting the apple, the felicitous
>sin that led to the Redemption.
You suggested that before too. But there are two problems:
1) If it's a felix peccatum, on the grounds that it brought new readers to
the book, then virtually _any_ Tolkien-related or Tolkien-inspired work, no
matter how crappy, also qualifies as a felix peccatum, because those too
have brought readers to the book.
2) In the classic felix peccatum, the sin itself leads to the good result.
But not here. Because it wasn't necessary for Jackson's film to have been
so bad to have attracted people who'd become readers. A more aesthetically
and morally faithful film would have been quite within Jackson's technical
and creative capacities, it could have been just as successful at the box
office, and probably more so, and would have attracted readers even more