This is the part that bothers me. Why do you assume that those of us who like Tolkien’s work are ignorant of Norse and Teutonic myths? I’m fairly well aware of how much was taken from the legends and sagas to shape Middle Earth’s background and stories, but I can still enjoy what Tolkien did with it. In fact, I think he he reinvented myths more than stole from them. If you read the Ainulindalë you can see how much he “stole” from Judeo-Christian mythology too, but his fusion of mono- and polytheism makes for a great tapestry to build a fantasy world.

Anyhoo, I’m well past my two cents’ worth now.

That’s not Tolkien’s fault, but that of the writers who tried to emulate him. A lot of fantasy references myth, folklore, or fairy tale in some way so I agree with JS Bangs – why is it a problem?

Likewise, since Tolkien made no bones that he was writing a history (albeit a made-up one) for his made-up languages to live in, why be upset that LOTR is or reads like a history? It’s not like it’s false advertising!

Just for the record, I’ve read all of it but never all of the way through, and I haven’t managed to sit through all of the films yet either.

And this is a problem why?

Plus, I’m sorry, but his characters are flat, mostly because he wrote in third person objective, and therefore the reader never really gets to truly know them. He wrote it to be like a history, and in that he succeeded…when I read the books I could really care less who lived or died.

I respect his use of myth, but it is the fault of his popularity that much of the literary world thinks that fantasy is unintellectual escapism…because a whole generation of writers didn’t try to do anything more than be Tolkien-Light, and therefore ruined the reputation of the genre.

- The movie used cinema technique so effectively to show (not tell) how someone who is already language-sound-rhythmically sophisticated, the Poet, learns a new language via total immersion.

- The horse! She was a character all her own, while remaining horse, of course, rather than a stand-in for a human companion. This also was fitting in the sense of a warrior’s dependence upon his horse, as much as his sword and other companions.

- A convincing sense of what this meant to be a hero in your community, that first ideal of hero, which depended also upon warrior prowess and success. This includes the battles described by another poster.

The villains of the piece, not so much. Not even at all. But then, this was based on a Crichton novel, Eaters of the Dead, so there you go.

I’m curious as to which parts/themes/etc of the Dark Knight were racist? I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious, I promise I’m not slamming on you or your opinion. I didn’t notice anything overt I guess and I’m curious about it.

I am possibly one of the few people who prefer the Silmarillion to LOTR.

I hate the Narnia books.

I believe Robert Silverberg is overrated. I’ve read travel brochures that are more interesting than his novels. I mean that literally.

And one of my favourite fantasy series (for TV) is a cheesy Italian series called Fantaghiro (The Cave of the Golden Rose). It comes complete with poor acting, poor dialogue and poor special effects as per tradition in SFF movies.

Star Wars and Star Trek of any season or episode are thudthudding bores. Unwatchable. And really, really unlistenable.

Love, C.