This isn’t an original complaint: Liking the book better than the movie is a middlebrow rite of passage. And novels are a constant, renewable source of stories for Hollywood, with ready-built brand appeal—from the kiddie franchises (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Narnia) to the airport bangers (Da Vinci Code, the Bourne etceteras). Nor are these always bad movies. It turns out that good plots and an epic dimension translate well from page to screen. But the attempt to scale this model by making midsize movies from literary novels has been an ugly disaster. In our post-The Reader world, I can safely say that I’d rather personally digitize back issues of Talk magazine than see another movie based on Harvey Weinstein’s favorite book. Scott Rudin can fudge off, too. Great Book, Bad Movie

David Platt writes: Thought you might be interested in the fact that that New York Times Online is running the original 1954-56 reviews of the Lord of the Rings. I am not sure of any particular reason which has led to this- but do they need one? Two of the reviews are by the great British poet WH Auden. The other is by an academic from Columbia University. It is fascinating to see how literary opinion received the books at the time- both are fans!

LOTR
TTT
ROTK

From Entertainment Weekly: When the news came down yesterday that a heretofore unpublished book by J.R.R. Tolkien will be hitting bookstores in May, I was a little surprised that I, an avowed Tolkien dilettante, felt a genuine twinge of excitement. Although I have never read Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, I did love me Peter Jackson’s LOTR moving pictures something fierce, and I’m quite twitterpated to see what director Guillermo Del Toro and exec producer Jackson have cooking for The Hobbit. Maybe this new Tolkien story — which the good professor reportedly wrote before spinning his tales of furry-footed Hobbits and ring-seeking dark lords — would prove just as richly filled with fodder for a sweeping fantasy epic that wins oodles of Oscars. EW.com