rohina at rohina at
Wed Jun 5 16:29:08 EDT 2002

> Again, it's not as good in all the same ways.  But it *is* as good 
> as a
> film as the book is as a book.  I catch flack from some people 
> when I
> say things like that, though.  To some, LOTR is such a core
> work--practically fantasy canon--that nothing can be allowed to 
> competeor claim equivalent stature.  To me, though, that's too 
> much privilege
> granted to LOTR.  It's good, it's even great, but other works are 
> on the
> same level.  I just don't buy that nothing new can rival foundational
> works of greatness.

I generally find that if I really like a book, then the film of the book
will disappoint me. My brother says this is because I prefer the medium
of books over film, and I think this is probably very true. My one
exception to this is The Princess Bride. I like the book and the film
equally, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Goldman is a
scriptwriter and so his understanding of the differences between books
and films let him do some canny adaptation. 

I think also there is an issue of which you experience first - it is
almost always better to see the film then read the book if you are going
to end up liking both.


To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list