good lad. Anything that could be turned into one of Mark's favourite films isn't alright by me.

I'm not sure when I'll be able to beg/steal the money to get home. Possibly for this:

Allez les Bleus! – A French Centenary Conference

The Museum of Rugby, Twickenham; together with the University of Southampton, Leeds Metropolitan University and the International Centre for Sports History and Culture (De Montfort University); brings you this conference to mark the centenary of the first visit to England by the French team.


Monday 3 September 2007
Museum of Rugby, Twickenham Stadium
9.00-9.30: Registration

9.30-10.30: Welcome address by Gregor Townsend MBE [former Scotland & Lions:] followed by a screening of vintage film footage.

10.30-11.25: ‘The Great Exception: Reflections On A Century Of French Rugby Genius’ Phil Dine [National University Of Ireland, Galway, & author of French Rugby Football:]

11.25-11.40: Coffee

11.40-12.35: ‘The Spread Of Rugby In France: Sociability, Violence And The Break With Britain And Ireland, 1900-1940’ Thierry Terret [Université Claude Bernard, Lyon:]

12.35-1.10: ‘Vichy And Rugby League’ Mike Rylance [Journalist & author of The Forbidden Game: The Untold Story Of French Rugby League]

1.10-2.00: Lunch

2.00-2.30: ‘French Rugby: From Amateurism And ‘Shamateurism’ To The Professional Game’ Olivier Nier [Université Claude Bernard, Lyon:]

2.30-3.00: ‘French Rugby Since 1995’ Eddie Butler [Journalist & broadcaster, former Wales & Lions:]

3.00-3.20: Tea

3.20-4.14: Panel of speakers, including:
Eddie Butler [Journalist & Broadcaster, former Wales & Lions:]
Gregor Townsend [former Scotland & Lions:]
Richard Holt [De Montfort University, & author of Sport And Society In Modern France:]
Huw Richards [Journalist & author of A Game For Hooligans: The History Of Rugby Union]


Conference forms can be downloaded from the Museum of Rugby’s website: www.rfu.com/microsites/museum

Awesome, non?

You are an IDIOT.

thanks for your insight into my psyche Kaitlin, just what I needed early on a grey Tuesday morning

Look: the first one was ponderous drivel, full of ropey allegories that don't really hold up; the remaining books just dig deeper into the mire. It only succeeds by convincing geeks that there's some mystical world out there that they should get to know. There isn't, kids. It all existed in the mind of a man who, when he was your age, founded a society for the illicit drinking of tea. Moreover -- and this is more important -- it's just horribly, astoundingly poorly written. The characters are beyond cliched; the dialogue is clumsy; and -- as Roly points out -- the same rubbish just keeps happening, over and over and over again. Next to this nonsense, Harry Potter is great literature.

Maybe you're thinkng about the movie...

Not being an obnoxious fanboy, I'm not offended by your review; but..."Drained the goo inside"?? That's disgusting. It's even less funny here than when Kent Brockman said it. I don't have "insight into [your:] psyche," but someone who writes of eating brain might need psychiatric help.
Otherwise, I feel generally similar, if less intensely, about Tolkien's writing. I think it's not bad, but mediocre. (Disclaimer: I'm still reading The Two Towers, and I suppose the writing could theoretically improve.)

what a bunch of arses haters

But it is true that the movies also rocked.

In the Return of the King there was a very small amount of Frodo and Sam, but the parts with them was exciting. They didn't walk around except for around a page or two before they got on Mount Doom, or went to Cirith Ungol, or joined the orc troops.

totally enjoyed your review --- it balances off my personal fascination over this whole 3-volume book!

Stephen wrote: "Look: the first one was ponderous drivel, full of ropey allegories that don't really hold up; the remaining books just dig deeper into the mire. It only succeeds by convincing geeks that there's so..."

You say the characters are cliched. I think you've overlooked the fact that Tolkien set the basic outline of many of the characters/races. His creatures have become standard in fantasy writing. He did not write a cliche

Yes, you can't write cliched characters when you created them first. It would be more accurate to say Tolkien created archetypes.

Josh wrote: "Yes, you can't write cliched characters when you created them first. It would be more accurate to say Tolkien created archetypes."

Im glad you agree, sir.

I approach this from the perspective of being a literature major but not a Tolkien fanatic. I would not call the books ponderous drivel, but I'm well aware that as archetypes, the main characters are not terribly deep. Frodo and Sam have okay character development, but there's not that much to Aragorn (noble king/warrior archetype) or Gandalf (eccentric and mysterious wizard). Legolas is simply paper-thin. I was also extremely disappointed about Sauron. He never personally appears, remaining nothing but a bad, bad man with great power.

Haha Maybe u just need to reread it. There is a reason why it's a movie and has sold millions of copies.....

Sure. It's fantasy and it's reasonably well-written; and the movie is epic and has great production values.

If you didn't find depth and an abundance of human sentiment in any of the 3 books, you were looking in the wrong places. When writing an epic, in the end, there are really only two meaningful categories of characters - good and bad. Why each character inhabits the side they're on, what struggles they have in fighting the battle they've chosen, etc. is where the characters develop. That context doesn't lend itself to the same type of character development you might find a book with a less sweeping plot.

In those terms, in some ways the most developed character is the reader him/herself, who enters into the framework of good vs. evil and identifies in different ways with the struggle in each character, and finds his/herself participating in the insightfully crafted context of moral courage and opposition which Tolkein has created. It's truly one of the greatest literary creations in Western literature.

Then why did you read it if you hated it so much? Because that's Frodo for you.
Even though Frodo going "Oh Sam" all the time gets on my nerves a little. I think we can all agree that Frodo is not the most likeable main character.

Jori wrote: "Haha Maybe u just need to reread it. There is a reason why it's a movie and has sold millions of copies....."

it's a movie because it's a classic. and the movie and the book are really different

Andrew wrote: "But it is true that the movies also rocked."

you can't base a book on its movie. both book and movie were good in their own way.

If you saw my earlier post, I was saying that the books were really good, and that maybe he was talking about the movie. But I really liked the movies as well, so I added that.

Allegory? Tolkien hated allegories. It's why he didn't like Lewis's Narnia books.

Maybe you should go read something more entertaining... I don't know, like Twilight.

The best fantasy book in the last 70 years and yet you still find something to complain about.... Think deeper than just the book and stop whining... J.R.R. Tolkien was a genius

twilight stinks

Auggie wrote: "twilight stinks"

agreed....

Isn't his name Gollum and not Golem?

thats not a review of the book. thats more of a review of yourself.