"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> >
> > The original book is for children...
>
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.

Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond!  The dwarves are
barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
cowardice.  Their funny names are written with kids in mind.  And a hobbit hole
is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
concept.

It was written for kids.

Silmarillion is much more tasteful, although possibly originating from juvenilia
from Tolkien, no doubt his most mature work.

> have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
> Personally, I think that's ill-advised. If we hadn't already had a century of
> films to look at (at 24fps), and 48fps filmmaking arrived full-blown on a naive
> public, maybe we would all *hate* motion blur; but that legacy has helped form
> our overall 'picture' of what films are supposed to look like, for better or
> worse.

that's it precisely.  but people also thought B&W and silent was what movies
were supposed to look like.

Post a reply to this message