Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Lord of the Rings"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:54, 11 February 2007 (EST)
 
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:54, 11 February 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
*Many aspects of Christopher's books are certainly original, and his writing is very good.  My sister read the sequel to ''Eragon'', ''Eldest'' and really liked it and encouraged me to give it a try, so I read it rather reluctantly and was pleasantly surprised.  Much of the derivative nature of ''Eragon'' has not been continued in ''Eldest'', it was was a very enjoyable read.  Christopher Paolini was only fifteen when he wrote ''Eragon'', and I think his writing has gotten much better since then.  Anyway, this is getting off topic so I'll be quiet now :) ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:30, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 20:30, February 11, 2007

How I got Houghton Mifflin to fix the dustjacket

I was introduced to The Lord of the Rings circa 1963, in college, when it was only available in hardbound, and known to a relatively small group of people. After reading them, I immediately bought The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, which was a very significant expense for a college student. I deeply regret not having preserved the dust jacket of The Hobbit, because I made an interesting discovery. The U. S. edition was, of course, published by Houghton Mifflin. The dustjacket said Houghton Mifflin on it.

But, around the edge of the dustjacket, is a decorative inscription in runes. Unlike the more well-developed fictional languages and alphabets in The Lord of the Rings, it turned out on inspection to be a direct letter-for-rune transliteration. And the runes said "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, etc. etc. ... and published by George Allen and Unwin." I immediately wrote Houghton Mifflin pointing out their terrible mistake, got a polite reply, and in the next edition the runes, as well as the ordinary letters, said "Houghton Mifflin."

I still have the book, but since I am a reader and not a book collector the dustjackets long ago wore out. I keep meaning to see whether the book collectors noticed the change and whether I would have had a valuable rarity if I'd kept the dustjacket... Dpbsmith 17:10, 10 February 2007 (EST)

The books are amazing along with the movie. No one can try to make books like that again. They can but not as good. Will N.

  • Darn tootin.' Dpbsmith 09:53, 11 February 2007 (EST)
  • Yep! It's really sickening when people try to imitate Tolkien's masterful writing. A prime example of this is the recently film adapted book, Eragon. Not only does this book copy Tolkien by having races of men, elves, and dwarves, but it even plagarizes many of his names. For example, The main character Eragon falls in love with an elf princess named Arya, their names are way to similar to Aragorn and Arwen. ~ SharonS 12:24, 11 February 2007 (EST)

It seems that Chritopher Paolini (the author of Eragon) actually borrowed a couple of names directly from Tolkein (such as "Beor" and "Melian") as well as mant ideas, yet his books definately have some very original qualities.

--BenjaminS 12:54, 11 February 2007 (EST)

  • Many aspects of Christopher's books are certainly original, and his writing is very good. My sister read the sequel to Eragon, Eldest and really liked it and encouraged me to give it a try, so I read it rather reluctantly and was pleasantly surprised. Much of the derivative nature of Eragon has not been continued in Eldest, it was was a very enjoyable read. Christopher Paolini was only fifteen when he wrote Eragon, and I think his writing has gotten much better since then. Anyway, this is getting off topic so I'll be quiet now :) ~ SharonS 15:30, 11 February 2007 (EST)