# LOTR: The World's Favorite Big Read



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 6, 2004)

*Tolkien has us spellbound*
By Jason Steger
Literary Editor

When the first volume of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was published 50 years ago, 3000 copies were printed. Since then millions have relished the epic adventures of Frodo Baggins and friends on their journey across Middle-earth to thwart the dark lord Sauron.

The book's enduring popularity was confirmed last night when The Lord of the Rings was named Australia's "favourite read" on ABC TV, its third victory in TV polls. It won in Britain and Germany.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/Books...d/2004/12/05/1102182155661.html?oneclick=true

Barley


----------



## DGoeij (Dec 6, 2004)

*smug expression* Well, what else would you expect.


----------



## Niniel (Dec 7, 2004)

Hey DGoeij! You still here
But of course I wholeheartedly agree with that.


----------



## DGoeij (Dec 8, 2004)

Hee Niniel, alles kits?  

I've recently refound Tolkien again and thereby TTF. Besides, I'm not a very bright student at best and keeping up takes lots of time. And I've been prowling various dutch fora on political matters, due to the events in our little nation of the past years. ((you just fear the end result of a similar election of favorite books right now, Puinhopen van Acht Jaar Paars as winner  ) 

I sort of faded out of TTF over a certain period, but started reading Tolkien again recently, for the sheer enjoyement AND because the EE of ROTK is coming up. I sort of realized I hadn't visited here in months. It's hard to pick up on things, it's hard to remember who's who and what's going on in general, but somehow I'm glad to be back again.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 8, 2004)

I watch the BBC program The Big Read from beginning to end. They started by finding the favourint top 100 books (without revealing the order), then the top 20, then the top 5 and finally the winner, with a fresh poll at each stage so that if your book had dropped out, you could vote for your favourite of the surviving books. I got the impression throughout that the presenter was embarrassed by the way LotR sat at the top of the heap with a clear lead throughout, and seldom mentioned it, while playing up the other books.

As usual, the intellectual pseuds came out of the woodwork to tell us that the hoypolloi were an empty headed rabble who wouldn't know good literature if it bit them, but it changed nothing. I have since read all the top 5 books in the BBC poll, and though they are good (though I reserve judgement on His Dark Materials, which irritated me), they don't come close to LotR.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 8, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ..As usual, the intellectual pseuds came out of the woodwork to tell us that the hoypolloi were an empty headed rabble who wouldn't know good literature if it bit them, but it changed nothing....



Do they have an email? I suggest we all start a write-in campaign. Nothing nasty or inflammatory, but something so _reasoned_ that it embarrasses them. If you like, I'll put up Tom Shippey's quote on this sort of thing (I don't have it at hand just now but I can get it later).

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 9, 2004)

Don't bother, Barley. These people are _unteachable_. You know the sort - we get them on these boards from time to time. They are too insecure to accept another opinion without treating it as a personal attack. I have had the pleasure of watching young posters on TTF become cured of this condition; but when it comes from PhD holders and so-called literary critics, then I fear they may be beyond hope.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 9, 2004)

DGoeij said:


> ...I've recently refound Tolkien again and thereby TTF...I sort of faded out of TTF over a certain period, but started reading Tolkien again recently, for the sheer enjoyement AND because the EE of ROTK is coming up. I sort of realized I hadn't visited here in months. It's hard to pick up on things, it's hard to remember who's who and what's going on in general, but somehow I'm glad to be back again.



Wilkommen! (I know that's German, but I don't know Dutch) I recognize your avatar, but your name is different...?

Barley


----------



## DGoeij (Dec 9, 2004)

In Dutch it would be: 'Welkom', but thanks anyway.  

No, I haven't changed names, I just haven't visited for quite some time. The avatar is all Walter's work, who was kind enough to make it for me. I'm quite happy with it's simple but nice design.  


It's not unusual for the so called 'intellectual world' to scorn about votes by the public. If the scron tends to be wel argumented, I might even agree, but usually it's a bit too much 'people are so gullible and we know so much better'for my taste. University student or not!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Dec 9, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> Don't bother, Barley. These people are _unteachable_. You know the sort - we get them on these boards from time to time. They are too insecure to accept another opinion without treating it as a personal attack. I have had the pleasure of watching young posters on TTF become cured of this condition; but when it comes from PhD holders and so-called literary critics, then I fear they may be beyond hope.



With all respect, don't you think we're being--dare I say it?--a touch insecure ourselves regarding what "intellectuals" think about the literary merits or otherwise of _The Lord of the Rings_? [I put scare quotes around the term _intellectual_, by the way, to suggest that when the term is used in a perjorative sense it becomes almost meaningless. Tom Shippey, for example, is the Walter J. Ong Chair of Humanities at St. Louis University in Missouri--and that sounds pretty "intellectual" to me.] The question of what constitutes "good literature" is always a subjective one. You may have valid reasons for holding the opinion that Lord of the Rings is "good literature"; "they" may have equally valid reasons for disagreeing. As someone who has read and enjoyed _Lord of the Rings_ more times than I can count, I couldn't care less.

I understand where you're coming from: snobbishness is always off-putting. But I think we should be careful to remember that _pro_-Tolkien snobbishness can be just as bad as _anti_-Tolkien snobbishness. Had I seen the BBC programme to which you refer, I imagine that like yourself I would have found the attitude of the presenter and the panel of "intellectual pseuds" irritating; but had they instead been fawning over the book, lauding its "enduring appeal" and its ability to tap into "universal truths," I imagine I would have found myself "driving the porcelain bus," as we say in Australia.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 9, 2004)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> With all respect, don't you think we're being--dare I say it?--a touch insecure ourselves regarding what "intellectuals" think about the literary merits or otherwise of _The Lord of the Rings_?...snobbishness is always off-putting.



While you were gone, some of us were trying to establish a set of criteria for genuine expertise and scholarship regarding things Tolkien: the genuine article versus the pretenders, the self-anointed "experts," so to speak. It almost got a thread closed. I think what you're sniffing here are the last whiffs of the idea of _self-proclaimed_ expertise and the antagonism it raised. If you want more on the specifics, I'll PM you. I want things to settle down again though. The mods are on the warpath like it's a permanent full moon...

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 10, 2004)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> I think we should be careful to remember that _pro_-Tolkien snobbishness can be just as bad as _anti_-Tolkien snobbishness. Had I seen the BBC programme to which you refer, I imagine that like yourself I would have found the attitude of the presenter and the panel of "intellectual pseuds" irritating; but had they instead been fawning over the book, lauding its "enduring appeal" and its ability to tap into "universal truths," I imagine I would have found myself "driving the porcelain bus," as we say in Australia.


I did not mean to sound like an inverted snob, AV; and I'm sorry if I offended any dons/profs. It was the overarching praise for Pullman's HDM that went with the criticism that caused me to read his book; my opinion of which made me wonder how it got there ahead of so many other worthy books. Perhaps if we re-run the poll after New Line's release of HDM feature film(s), we will see just how much effect the films really had. What a pity Pride and Prejudice wouldn't benefit from some CGI.

What about a structured, world wide, book poll? Would we end up with some obscure Chinese story winning?

Aside: I don't think dead cows are art either.


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 12, 2004)

AV, by any chance, did you watch the Big Read? There you would have seen the intellectual pseuds at their snobbish best, dismissing LoTR because it was a fantasy-one of them hadn't even read it and she was criticizing it. 

Still, the Big Read was a poll of and for dilettantes-certainly the inclusion of Stephen King, J.K Rowling and to an extent Tolkien, as well as the other less than intellectual books would have been anathema to the intellectuals.

Personally, I was disappointed with some of the results, they left out some of great writers and books, but given it was a poll conducted by the public rather then a select group of experts Goethe, Dante and Turgenev were bound to be left out. Unless it was a novel-only poll, then Goethe and Dante would be left out, unless they voted for Elective Affinities or The Sorrows of Young Werther.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Dec 13, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> While you were gone, some of us were trying to establish a set of criteria for genuine expertise and scholarship regarding things Tolkien: the genuine article versus the pretenders, the self-anointed "experts," so to speak. It almost got a thread closed. I think what you're sniffing here are the last whiffs of the idea of self-proclaimed expertise and the antagonism it raised.



I've had a look at the thread in question, and I think I better understand the context in which Eledhwen's remarks re: persons "too insecure to accept another opinion without treating it as a personal attack." And I have seen (and been mildly amused by) instances of such behaviour on other threads. You're right--it's probably a matter for PM.



Eledhwen said:


> I did not mean to sound like an inverted snob, AV; and I'm sorry if I offended any dons/profs. It was the overarching praise for Pullman's HDM that went with the criticism that caused me to read his book; my opinion of which made me wonder how it got there ahead of so many other worthy books. Perhaps if we re-run the poll after New Line's release of HDM feature film(s), we will see just how much effect the films really had. What a pity Pride and Prejudice wouldn't benefit from some CGI.



Well I'm neither a don nor a prof (are there any dons/profs on the Forum?), and I wasn't calling _you_ a snob--inverted or otherwise. I merely wanted to make the point that, as regards Tolkien (or J.K. Rowling, or Stephen King, or William Gibson, or Raymond E. Feist, or any other cultural icon), snobbery can cut both ways.

By the way, what is Pullman's HDM? (Like I said, I haven't seen the BBC poll).



Inderjit S said:


> AV, by any chance, did you watch the Big Read? There you would have seen the intellectual pseuds at their snobbish best, dismissing LoTR because it was a fantasy-one of them hadn't even read it and she was criticizing it.



I haven't seen it (we don't recieve the BBC down here), but I have no doubt I would have seen snobbery at its best--if the dismissal of LoTR by virtue of its genre is anything to go by. As for dismissing the text without having read it--that's like a film reviewer giving a negative review of a film she hasn't seen. (Though perhaps we all do something like that from time to time--I haven't seen any of the films starring the Olsen twins, but I don't expect that I'd enjoy them). 

But here's what I would like to establish. Are these people snobs merely for having "dissed" Tolkien, or because when they do so they have--or appear to have--certain "objective" criteria in mind regarding what constitutes a Great Work or a Great Author?



> Still, the Big Read was a poll of and for dilettantes-certainly the inclusion of Stephen King, J.K Rowling and to an extent Tolkien, as well as the other less than intellectual books would have been anathema to the intellectuals.



I'm still a touch confused as to what people mean here by the term "intellectual." I understand that in the current political climate the concept has attained negative connotations--I'm thinking here of the scene in _Outfoxed_ where someone remarks (words to the effect of) "The problem with the French is that they think too much."

But you come across to me as intellectual yourself, Inder--and when I say that, I mean it as a compliment: you're knowledgeable, well-read, intelligent, articulate, and critical.



> Personally, I was disappointed with some of the results, they left out some of great writers and books, but given it was a poll conducted by the public rather then a select group of experts Goethe, Dante and Turgenev were bound to be left out.



On the other hand, the select group of experts might have left out Tolkien--in which case, where does the "expert" end, and the "intellectual pseud" begin?


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 13, 2004)

> By the way, what is Pullman's HDM? (Like I said, I haven't seen the BBC poll).



His Dark Materials. 



> But you come across to me as intellectual yourself, Inder--and when I say that, I mean it as a compliment: you're knowledgeable, well-read, intelligent, articulate, and critical.
> 
> 
> > Well..thank you. To an extent, possibly, I am an intellectual that is not to say that I am intelligent of course.  And, I must admit, I am being a bit hypocritical in castigating intellectuals for being snobs, when I am a snob myself, in some respects. But it still annoying when people reject LoTR based on the clichéd anti-LoTR arguments (i.e. it is fantasy, no character depth etc.) but perhaps that is not inclusively a "intellectual" thing.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 13, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> ...I am a snob myself...



Ah, but you're _*our*_ snob!

Barley


----------



## DGoeij (Dec 13, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Ah, but you're _*our*_ snob!
> 
> Barley



Something like, 'We rather have them inside relieving themselves outwards, then outside, relieving themselves inwards'?


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 13, 2004)

Pfft....I am nobodies snob!


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 13, 2004)

Links: www.hisdarkmaterials.org (unofficial)
www.darkmaterials.net/index.php?d=movie (the film)
www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/ (official BBC Big Read pages)

I've mislaid the address of Pullman's official site.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Dec 13, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> But it still annoying when people reject LoTR based on the clichéd anti-LoTR arguments (i.e. it is fantasy, no character depth etc.) but perhaps that is not inclusively a "intellectual" thing.



Absolutely. And forgive my "touchiness" over the uses and misuses of the term _intellectual_ in the present discussion: I come from a country whose government has mounted a campaign of routine anti-intellectualism and teacher-bashing in order to legitimate greater government control over what gets taught in publicly-funded universities and schools. But perhaps I should say little more about this, if I am leading this discussion into the forbidden realm of "politics."

In any case, you might be interested in this article about the scholarly journal _Tolkien Studies_, published by West Virginia University Press.

. . . . 


Thanks for the info about Pullman's trilogy--I have to admit that I've never heard of it before, even though it sounds like (in your neck of the woods at any rate) the biggest thing since . . . well . . . Harry Potter.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Dec 13, 2004)

Following up on BB's initial post . . . 

From _The Age_


> *Are these really Australia's favourite books?*
> Jason Steger
> Dec 8 2004
> 
> ...



Also from _Crikey.com_: Fudging the stats - ABC’s My Favourite Book


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 14, 2004)

A search on the 800 horsemen author *may* find that Christian websites and/or publications in Australia have been canvassing votes for him from the 'faithful'. If so, they should be ashamed of themselves.

How many votes were cast altogether? If the number was low, you run the risk of rogue data that does not reflect the reading public's real preferences getting into the chart. How well publicised was Australia's Big Read?

The link in the above post is very revealing. It seems that this poll was either done on the cheap (no marketing to get the voters out) or they put such a high price on the phone call that no-one responded. Come on you Aussies - why was this such a bad poll?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Dec 14, 2004)

There were, according to this article, about 15,000 responses. Now that may not seem like a very large figure, but you have to bear in mind that Australia has a small population (around 20 million), and the ABC--relative to the commercial TV networks--captures only a small proportion of the viewing audience (and it is extremely underfunded, at any rate, which would account for the poll being done "on the cheap"). The cost of voting would not have been prohibitive--people could vote via SMS, telephone, mail, or online.

But I don't think that polls of this kind--no matter how well they are run--can ever reflect the reading public's "real" preferences.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 14, 2004)

So if ABC is equivalent to our BBC, I would expect them to charge less for the calls than a commercial channel. 

The BBC Big Read polled 750,000 votes, but that is a small number compared to recent, more frivolous TV phone polls:

Recently, the BBC and ITV (commercial) channels ran head-to-head polls; the BBC had Celebrity Ballroom Dancing poll votes; proceeds of the calls to charity, and ITV had The X Factor - a knockout poll for new singing talent, the proceeds of the calls going to ITV. Nevertheless, the ITV final polled 7 million votes (not 7 million voters, but 7 million calls) because some people have more money than sense.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Dec 14, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> some people have more money than sense.



You can say that again!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 14, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> some people have more money than sense.





Arthur_Vandelay said:


> You can say that again!



"Money — it's a disease! May God _smite_ me with it, and may I never recover!" —Tevye, _Fiddler on the Roof_

Barley


----------

