In Reply to: Someone's really good explanation of why LOTR has bored me and so many others. posted by clarkjohnsen on December 21, 2003 at 13:50:15:
Myths are based more on the familiar, such as heroic exploits given a real historical basis and time in spite of the symbolic trappings (i.e., a ring, amulet, magic rod, what have you). In a fantasy, the world and those who populate it tend to be based much more upon imagination, with unfamiliar settings and events. Tolkien established a fantasy realm, Middle Earth, which was populated by many imaginative creatures, human beings only being one of many species. It's unfortunate that Tolkien's trilogy has bored you, your's being the greater loss in all liklihood, but regardless of your take on Tolkien's works you should NEVER directly correlate the written word with the filmed interpretation. They're apples and oranges, or Hobbits and Orcs if you prefer. No offense, but prejudging one by the other only makes the judge appear foolish, IMHO.As for Mr. Ross's opinion, I'm inclined toward discounting it completely based on the fact that similarities abound in heroic literature and he failed to also address dissimilar aspects of both works. A praiseworthy critic would ask and answer relevent questions that discount his theories as well; he did none of this. For example: Do cultures and species exist in one author's story that aren't present in the other's? Is the journey taken by the hero or heroes similar or dissimilar? Are the resolutions to crisis similar or different? Are the heroic character(s) successes rewarded with life and happiness or death and sacrifice?
See what I mean? For the Grey Poupon New Yorker's critic to accuse Tolkien of "stealing" Wagner's Ring just doesn't quite *ahem* ring true. If Tolkien weren't already rotating at escape velocity in his grave from such bogus charges he'd probably be amused at his detractors lamenting the fact that the statute of limitations ran out long ago! Short of casting his casket into Mount Doom they'd never be satisfied anyway. :o)
While we're on the subject of Wagner's Ring myth, have you taken the time to view the filmed version (i.e., Fritz Lang's epic two part German film interpretation from 1924, Die Nibelungen)?
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- There is a big difference between fantasy and myth, at least as I define it. - Audiophilander 23:06:14 12/21/03 (9)
- "As for Mr. Ross's opinion..." - clarkjohnsen 09:27:52 12/22/03 (7)
- Excuse me, but I thought that this was the Video Asylum Film Forum. - Audiophilander 10:32:54 12/22/03 (6)
- "...a stuffed shirt music critic's opinion." LOL! As low-brow as you've become... - clarkjohnsen 09:47:51 12/23/03 (5)
- Three responses to date? Indeed, I'm impressed; your audience is growing! - Audiophilander 10:39:52 12/23/03 (4)
- Three *intelligent* responses. Makes all the difference. - clarkjohnsen 14:53:41 12/23/03 (3)
- The difference is that you've succeeded in making asterisks out of your three supporters. (nt) - Audiophilander 22:29:05 12/24/03 (0)
- Oh giggle! Severius. You two deserve each other's admiration. (nt - dennzio 05:03:21 12/24/03 (1)
- Bad dennzio, ...bad, bad! - Audiophilander 22:45:28 12/24/03 (0)
- Re: There is a big difference between fantasy and myth, at least as I define it. - rico 08:09:14 12/22/03 (0)