Xenite.Org News

Salon.Com mangles Tolkien history for Tolkien fandom - Lord of the Rings news - J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings

August 17, 2000 at 15:35:33

When TheOneRing.Net mentioned the article we felt it was nice but not newsworthy. Now other sites are talking about the Salon article and some are even claiming it was one of the best written Tolkien articles in the media. Well, Xenite.Org has a few things to say about the article, and 'best written' is not how we would describe it.

It is evident from the article that the writer sought out members of TheOneRing.Net's community, which is more than we can say that most reporters have done in recent efforts to keep the world updated on Tolkien movie news. So, kudos to Andrew O'Hehir for taking the time to do some research.

Unfortunately, O'Hehir goes on to portray Tolkien fandom as geeky underground culture college students, overlooing the fact that some of the 20th century's leading authors and critics praised Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS when it was first published, and misrepresenting THE HOBBIT as "a minor companion piece". Obviously he didn't bother to check the copyright dates to see that THE HOBBIT, which is currently outselling THE LORD OF THE RINGS in the United States, preceded the latter book by seventeen years.

Mr. O'Hehir also seems completely unaware of Tolkien's scholarly work on "Beowulf", instead writing that Tolkien "was perhaps better known for his critical edition of the early English epic poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight...."

The reporter then goes on to cite the quite out-dated ritualistic 1992 Centenary Conference blurb about how THE LORD OF THE RINGS has sold more than 50,000,000 copies in 25 languages. One would have to deduce no copies have been sold since this number was reported 8 years ago. (Note: Houghton Mifflin has informally suggested to some people that the actual sale figures for all of Tolkien's books are above 100,000,000 copies).

And Mr. O'Hehir says that Hollywood has long ignored Tolkien, even though the first effort to make a LOTR-based film was initiated in 1956. Nor does he credit Rankin/Bass with their production of "The Hobbit" in the 1970s. These are pretty well-publicized facts. Mr. O'Hehir's research seems to have begun and ended with TheOneRing.Net's email addresses, and he didn't ask many questions, apparently.

Misinformation in the article also abounds about the technology being used in the movies, the size, scope, and makeup of the online fandom communities, fan positions on controversial issues, and the impact that Tolkien's readership is going to have on the bottom line of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" movies when they come to the theater.

Mr. O'Hehir adds insult to ignorance by writing "I haven't read Tolkien since I was in high school, but I still had an awful sinking feeling in my chest when I first saw the new action figure representing the Lord of the Nazgūl -- leader of the nine fearsome Ringwraiths who pursue Frodo and his friends -- now selling for $19.95 at online toy stores."

Xenite.Org's Michael Martinez not only reads Tolkien every now and then, he wasn't displeased at all with the Lord of the Nazgul action figure (although he has a credit on the box, so he admits to some possible bias in this last matter).

If the Salon article was one of the "best written" Tolkien articles so far, we can only hope we'll see considerably more improvement than this. Otherwise, as the Irish Times pointed out for the rest of the world, we'll all be relegated to stuffing our portly selves into our cheap medieval costumes and swaggering around at drunken soirees with no lives to attend to.