Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Rennadrel]

How do you define a bad cake? I mean, there's a number of ways. Using the wrong or spoiled ingredients. Not using the correct measurements or techniques (proper mixing, cooking time, etc). You might still end up with something edible that someone might happily enjoy shoveling into their gullet, but failing to meet the basic criteria of the recipe would result in a bad example of whatever it is you were aiming to produce. Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake. I suppose the best way to describe something as being a bad example of X is if it failed to meet one or more of the basic criteria that defines X.

Those things you mentioned, taste, texture, shape. Those are NOT "understandably subjective". I picked baking because food preferences are certainly a matter of taste but baking is a skill and a matter of precision, and if you've spent any time watching the Great British Bake Off you'd know that these are objective criteria that can be gauged by people with the proper knowledge of the subject. I'd certainly not be able to judge those aspects myself because despite having eaten plenty of birthday cake over the course of my life I lack the knowledge and experience to properly critique them on a technical level. I am ignorant on that subject matter, which is something I wish more people would be comfortable saying rather than blurting out knee-jerk criticism and masking it as "it's just my opinion so it's as valid as anyone else's". And again, that's not to say that people can't enjoy a bad version of something, or hate a good version of something else.



I quoted you, but not every detail of the post was aimed at something you may or may not have specifically said. I'm also addressing other posters who I didn't specifically quote but who will possibly read the post. I brought up Clark because, as you confirm, her performance is the one that other people like to bring up.

"Bad acting" is actually painfully easy to identify. It's like someone who doesn't know the intricacies of baking still being able to tell when something is burnt. Children, athletes-turned-movie stars, low budget/student productions, porn stars, etc. are usually examples that even the most brain-dead posters on this forum would be able to point out because they typically fail at the most basic concepts of acting. Mumbling, poor enunciation, unnatural cadence because they're spending more energy trying to recall the lines so the words are just blurted out as they come, missing their sight lines, missing their marks, etc. These are examples of bad acting, and none of the actors on this show (Clark included) are anywhere close to this level.

Outside of what constitutes legitimately bad acting there's definitely a lot of range. Sticking with the baking analogy, an amateur baker can certainly produce something that ISN'T BAD, while at the same time not being AS GOOD AS something a professional baker can produce. They followed all the basic instructions but maybe lacked in precision or some optional touches that can elevate the end result. And yes, good actors can also make mistakes, but even the average professional dramatic actor (especially one in a production with a big enough budget to do multiple takes) isn't going to be making mistakes throughout an entire performance. If you (the royal you) think a performance didn't quite work then it's more likely an issue with direction than with acting.

I think the acting is what really made Peter Jackson's LOTR films so timeless. I can't think of a single scene that is poorly acted. Sure, a couple of scenes feel a little stilted in terms of dialogue so they come off less than stellar, but for the most part, the acting is purely superb. But acting can only be as strong as the writing behind it. And that's where Rings of Power really falls short. Even the best actors can't polish a turd that bad. When you have a great story with a compelling narrative and interesting dialogue, the rest can more easily fall into place.

[Adamas102]

Is that objective value standardized to a finite value though? You could have made the cake with improper measurements or base ingredients and still come out with a good quality cake, right?

Like some baking recipes are flexible enough to allow ingredient substitutions. Does that make it an objectively bad version of the original? No, it would simply be different.

When you make a substitution for baking, you're still needing to do so with an ingredient that performs the same basic function. Like, you can't substitute orange juice in place of butter, but you can substitute a vegan alternative that will act similarly to animal derived fat. So yeah, there might be options for different sweeteners or raising agents, but you'd almost assuredly need a sweetener or raising agent in order to achieve the desired outcome. These are the basic, necessary components that if you omit or forget you probably won't even end up with an edible baked good, much less what it was you were trying to make.

And I did point out that there can certainly be a range in quality once the basic components are met. That things can be NOT AS GOOD AS without necessarily being BAD.

No, it just simply wouldn't be a German chocolate cake. A Chocolate cake is not an objectively bad example of a German Chocolate cake, make sense? Objectivity deals with facts, and these are not facts. It is merely not what you are expecting it to be, but that doesn't make it bad. I would call that a mistake (either in name or in not following the recipe correctly), not a bad version of a German Chocolate cake. Just like if you wanted a dog and you got a goldfish instead, it doesn't make it an 'objectively bad dog'. It isn't a dog at all.

It's not that a chocolate cake without coconut is always a bad example of a German chocolate cake. The assumption though is that you're aiming to specifically make a German chocolate cake and have failed to do so by missing a key and defining ingredient.

The dog/goldfish analogy doesn't quite work because unlike baking, or acting, or writing, or painting, etc you're not talking about a creative process based on knowledge and skill which is really the heart of what this discussion was about. What does it take for someone doing something they're skilled at to end up with a bad outcome? That no matter how skilled or experienced an artist might be, if a layperson with no real knowledge of the craft says they did a bad job then there's no arguing against that because there's apparently no objective way to determine success?

Even if we're going to use some of the highest standards of judgement like the Olympics, it's still all down to subjectivity, not objectivity. It isn't objectively valued even if they are 'being objective' in their judgement. The fact that it goes through judgement at all is rooted in subjectivity, and is what causes one judge to give the same athlete a different performance rating than their peers. That's why you see multiple scores tallying an average, and not just one universal score which every judge immediately agrees upon.

The thing you're missing here is that at this level of competition these athletes are all objectively good at what they do or they simply wouldn't be at the Olympics. The base requirements for the craft have been met and the scoring at that point is essentially determining how close to perfect they can get. AND of course it takes experienced judges to even attempt to make a fair determination on that level.

If anything, this helps support my point which is to say that all of these professional, experienced actors are beyond the point of fluctuating between good and bad acting. They might make mistakes here or there (like an Olympic gymnast not sticking a landing and losing some points) or give an unremarkable performance (like an Olympic gymnast doing a routine that lacks the complexity to beat the other competitors) but they are still performing in a tier well beyond what would be encompassed by "bad acting".

[Triceron]

When you make a substitution for baking, you're still needing to do so with an ingredient that performs the same basic function. Like, you can't substitute orange juice in place of butter, but you can substitute a vegan alternative that will act similarly to animal derived fat. So yeah, there might be options for different sweeteners or raising agents, but you'd almost assuredly need a sweetener or raising agent in order to achieve the desired outcome. These are the basic, necessary components that if you omit or forget you probably won't even end up with an edible baked good, much less what it was you were trying to make.

But that's again an example of subjective value.

Like a vegetarian alternative to a dish is not going to be held to the same standard by everyone. I know plenty of people (foodies) who will say that a vegetable broth for Ramen is simply unacceptable, even if it is viable. The broth is a key ingredient in Ramen, and substituting the fattiness with a vegan alternative would result in a completely different experience, even if it's still being called 'Ramen'.

So is it bad Ramen? Depends on who you ask. There is no objective standard here that says what is right or wrong, and someone with higher standards could easily consider an alternative to be unacceptable. That just means their standards are different, not that the vegetable broth objectively makes 'bad ramen'.

And I did point out that there can certainly be a range in quality once the basic components are met. That things can be NOT AS GOOD AS without necessarily being BAD.

Again, depends on the individual.

Let's play Devil's Advocate. Pick a movie you think is objectively bad. Now, can you argue against your own example by implying that it isn't bad but merely isn't as good as other movies? I'm sure you could. This applies to any bad movie you can think of, because ultimately what you're talking about here is subjectively valued. Of course a 'bad movie' is 'not as good as other movies'. The threshold for defining good and bad is based on whether it is effective, and 'not as good as others' is merely an excuse to cover for a movie's ineffectiveness.

It's not that a chocolate cake without coconut is always a bad example of a German chocolate cake. The assumption though is that you're aiming to specifically make a German chocolate cake and have failed to do so by missing a key and defining ingredient.

Then that is a mistake, not a bad example.

These are not the same things.

That no matter how skilled or experienced an artist might be, if a layperson with no real knowledge of the craft says they did a bad job then there's no arguing against that because there's apparently no objective way to determine success?

But it sounds like you're talking about a certain craft that isn't subjectively valued like arts and entertainment.

And yes, there is no objective way to determine success. It IS rooted in subjectivity. Like Van Gogh's paintings being fairly worthless when he was alive, while being highly regarded now after his death. That is not valued objectively, it is absolutely valued subjectively, and through a wide margin of standard difference depending on the time and era we're talking about. Van Gogh was not as successful or highly regarded in life as he is post-humously. His paintings were never objectively regarded, nor was the acknowledgement of his skill compared to his contemporaries. It simply can't be.

If you're saying that there's an objective way to determine success, then can you explain why Van Gogh was not successful in his lifetime through said objective standards? You can't, because that success was never based on 'facts'. It's based on perception of value, and how that value has been realized and changed over time. He wasn't painting in a style that was popular in the time that he lived in, and that discrepency factors into how his success was ultimately determined. That being said, just being popular doesn't immediately equate to success either. I can just as easily point at something like popular memes that did not bring success to their original creators. Success isn't determined objectively.

The thing you're missing here is that at this level of competition these athletes are all objectively good at what they do or they simply wouldn't be at the Olympics. The base requirements for the craft have been met and the scoring at that point is essentially determining how close to perfect they can get. AND of course it takes experienced judges to even attempt to make a fair determination on that level.

Yes but the 'objectively good' you're talking about refers to their health and fitness; their ability to perform. Those aren't standards that are being used to value to their performance. It's not like you can objectively compare the performances of one gymnast doing 3 flips in the air to another who does not, and somehow objectively imply that 'well we know they can physically could do it but they didn't so they don't get these points'. It's all a part of the performance and executing on their strengths, rather than just meeting an arbitrary standard of needing to do '3 flips in the air' to check off some box. Do you immediately knock down points because they did not do the same routine? Because that's what it would mean to objectively evaluate. This isn't exactly a driving test, where the conditions are uniform.

Just like if you're evaluating a cake in its taste and presentation, you aren't objectively evaluating the quality of the ingredients on an individual level, you're judging the complete package. It's like those click-bait youtube videos of 'Pro chef using $10 ingredients vs Dudebro using $100 ingredients', the results may vary. Objectivity does not drive the final judgement. We can objectively see that inferior ingredients are being used, or inferior talent is being applied, but those objective facts don't drive the final result. It's not an immediate result of 'inferior ingredients' or 'imperfect execution'. It's the subjective evaluation of the final product (performance) that encapsulates the final judgement.

[Koriani]

Its a simple fact the books were never really popular until the movies came out, they may of been popular for a book but not selling the millions and being a billion dollar industry that the films made them into, most of the copies sold after the release of the first film and that is a fact, there is barely any information on book sales mentioned for tolkien books prior to the release of the films. Good luck on always being wrong about things.

I already linked you an official website showing the exact opposite of what you claim the last time you said this in the thread. You obviously didn't read it so I won't provide it again. Instead, I'll do your argument - "Its a simple fact. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm right. But you do. Good luck on always being wrong about things."

You're such a predictable troll-bot. You have the exact same defense in every thread, in every opinion, you state.

I think I'm almost around to the idea that you're actually doing this on purpose, for fun, and seeing how long you can last on a forum by just repeating your logic fallacies as often as possible. I'm sure you're getting a good laugh every time we engage and start the circle again. I'd call it brilliant except its not entertaining and only drives people away from discourse out of frustration.

- - - Updated - - -

You are basically saying Galadriel a spoiled brat with brain damage

Truly a good protagonist to head the show

Don't forget, Kenn also says LOTR wasn't a popular book series until the movies. These are his facts.

[kenn9530]

I already linked you an official website showing the exact opposite of what you claim the last time you said this in the thread. You obviously didn't read it so I won't provide it again. Instead, I'll do your argument - "Its a simple fact. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm right. But you do. Good luck on always being wrong about things."

You're such a predictable troll-bot. You have the exact same defense in every thread, in every opinion, you state.

I think I'm almost around to the idea that you're actually doing this on purpose, for fun, and seeing how long you can last on a forum by just repeating your logic fallacies as often as possible. I'm sure you're getting a good laugh every time we engage and start the circle again. I'd call it brilliant except its not entertaining and only drives people away from discourse out of frustration.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't forget, Kenn also says LOTR wasn't a popular book series until the movies. These are his facts.

Nope i provided you with multiple sets of information that backed up everything i said, you had no proof at all that more books sold before the films when all the evidence proves otherwise, most of the books were sold after the films as all articles say the same thing.

Being popular as a book series is different from the popularity of a multi billion dollar series after the films release alone proves where the popularity came from.

"More than 2 million copies of the one-volume trade paperback have been sold in the United States the past three years. More than 25 million Tolkien-related books have been sold.

"That's just in the U.S.," Harper says. "Tolkien has been a cultural phenomenon for years. The Lord of the Rings has sold 50 million copies worldwide. But there's been nothing like the audience growth we've experienced coinciding with the new movies. I know of no other publishing experience like it."

The Orlando Sentinel is a Tribune Co. newspaper." an article from 2003, so as you can clearly tell most of the LOTR books sold after the first film so less than 25 million were sold prior to the films release, its simple math, 150 million sold by 2007 so again my point is 100% correct as most of its popularity was from the films.

Are you going to deny simple math, more books sold after the films release as a films release gives it a much wider audience and more ppl will actually know what LOTRs is actually about, book popularity is nothing compared to what happens when its made into a film.

[Koriani]

Nope i provided you with multiple sets of information that backed up everything i said, you had no proof at all that more books sold before the films when all the evidence proves otherwise, most of the books were sold after the films as all articles say the same thing.

Being popular as a book series and being a multi billion dollar series after the films release alone proves where the popularity came from.

Ok, now you're just lying. You never even *responded* to the post I made to you linking the actual facts. Much less provided anyone, or me, 'multiple sets of information'. I waited, and waited, I even looked forward to seeing what you could possibly respond with after I linked the facts - and you never did.

Just outright LYING. Talk about dishonest arguments.

[kenn9530]

Ok, now you're just lying. You never even *responded* to the post I made to you linking the actual facts. Much less provided anyone, or me, 'multiple sets of information'. I waited, and waited, I even looked forward to seeing what you could possibly respond with after I linked the facts - and you never did.

Just outright LYING. Talk about dishonest arguments.

Simple facts is i did provide a min of 3 different sources backing up everything i have said so you should look at previous posts, just because you want to act ignorant and ignore the simple facts doesnt change what is actually true, did you not read what i posted or are you claiming its BS because it proves you to be wrong.

I also just gave you a source of information proving what i said was accurate so its you being completely dishonest when you wont admit your own mistake.

[Triceron]

Simple facts is i did provide a min of 3 different sources

lol you didn't provide anything.

Just like you still aren't now. You're so full of shit dude.

[kenn9530]

lol you didn't provide anything.

Just like you still aren't now. You're so full of shit dude.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181120...249-story.html

so this article from 2003 doesnt prove what i said does it.

Most of the sales and popularity was from the films, the article backs me up.

You are full of BS. Just because ppl are too lazy to do thier own actual research.

[Triceron]

https://web.archive.org/web/20181120...249-story.html

so this article from 2003 doesnt prove what i said does it.

Most of the sales and popularity was from the films, the article backs me up.

You are full of BS. Just because ppl are too lazy to do thier own actual research.

It doesn't prove that LOTR wasn't a popular series before the movies, lol. It just proves an already popular series got even more popular

Just like if you link at an article about Top Gun: Maverick's success at the box office and say this movie has made Tom Cruise a popular star and claim he wasn't popular before it. The movie did great at the box office, but he was already a popular star WELL before this movie. This movie just ADDS to his popularity.

[kenn9530]

It doesn't prove that LOTR wasn't a popular series before the movies, lol. It just proves an already popular series got even more popular

Just like if you link at an article about Top Gun: Maverick's success at the box office and say this movie has made Tom Cruise a popular star and claim he wasn't popular before it. The movie did great at the box office, but he was already a popular star WELL before this movie. This movie just ADDS to his popularity.

My origional post i said most of its popularity came from after the films release, so my statement is correct isnt it, since more books sold after the films than before hand, it may of done decent for a book but its actual popularity came from the films, before it was popular for a niche fanbase but not a widely known series until the films otherwise it would of sold more than 25 million by the films release.

[kenn9530]

Holy crap dude… do you live in an alternate universe? LOTR was so popular in the 60s that it made it into two Led Zeppelin songs and Gandalf was the basis for a Black Sabbath song. In 1975 Rush released a song called “Rivendell”. Leonard Nimoy released “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” in 1968. The Beatles toyed with making an adaptation.

It was an INCREDIBLY famous book before 2001.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...nd-the-hippies

The facts are more books sold around the first films release than all previous year combined, you must have low standards on whats popular.

[rhorle]

Holy crap dude… do you live in an alternate universe? LOTR was so popular in the 60s that it made it into two Led Zeppelin songs and Gandalf was the basis for a Black Sabbath song. In 1975 Rush released a song called “Rivendell”. Leonard Nimoy released “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” in 1968. The Beatles toyed with making an adaptation.

Its popularity plateaued after the counter culture movement. It was popular but it wasn't at the forefront anymore. The movies brought it back to the forefront and really cemented it into the "modern" culture. With a renewed interest in licensing and deals along with the Amazon and WB projects it might never leave. At least in our life time.

[Koriani]

My origional post i said most of its popularity came from after the films release, so my statement is correct isnt it, since more books sold after the films than before hand, it may of done decent for a book but its actual popularity came from the films, before it was popular for a niche fanbase but not a widely known series until the films otherwise it would of sold more than 25 million by the films release.

Ok so here's the original site I gave you as proof that the LOTR/Hobbit books were popular before the films release.

https://wordsrated.com/lord-of-the-rings-stats/

I found ONE official statement about the book sales BEFORE and AFTER the movies - guess what - sold more (still) before the movies. Here you go, Kenn.
100 million BEFORE movie, 50 million more since. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...26402420070416

"Brawn estimates that 150 million copies of “The Lord of the Rings” have been sold worldwide, 50 million of those since Jackson’s films were released from 2001, plus 50 million copies of other Tolkien works."

And on the wikki site for the books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings

We have statements such like:

"The first Ballantine paperback edition was printed in October that year, selling a quarter of a million copies within ten months. On 4 September 1966, the novel debuted on The New York Times's Paperback Bestsellers list as number three, and was number one by 4 December, a position it held for eight weeks.[68] "

Look, best selling in the 1960s!! Along with:

"In 1957, The Lord of the Rings was awarded the International Fantasy Award. Despite its numerous detractors, the publication of the Ace Books and Ballantine paperbacks helped The Lord of the Rings become immensely popular in the United States in the 1960s. The book has remained so ever since, ranking as one of the most popular works of fiction of the twentieth century, judged by both sales and reader surveys.[92] In the 2003 "Big Read" survey conducted in Britain by the BBC, The Lord of the Rings was found to be the "Nation's best-loved book". In similar 2004 polls both Germany[93] and Australia[94] chose The Lord of the Rings as their favourite book. In a 1999 poll of Amazon.com customers, The Lord of the Rings was judged to be their favourite "book of the millennium".[95] In 2019, the BBC News listed The Lord of the Rings on its list of the 100 most influential novels.[96]"

So huh, we have it being "Immensely popular" since the 1960s and "REMAINED SO EVER SINCE", and "most popular works of fiction in the 20th century" (Cutoff for that being 2000).

Also: "has had the distinction of remaining CONTIUOUSLY IN PRINT from its publication in 1969,"

Also: "The Lord of the Rings has had a profound and wide-ranging impact on popular culture, beginning with its publication in the 1950s, but especially during the 1960s and 1970s, when young people embraced it as a countercultural saga. .... "Rock bands of the 1970s were musically and lyrically inspired by the fantasy-embracing counter-culture of the time. The British rock band Led Zeppelin recorded several songs that contain explicit references to The Lord of the Rings, such as mentioning Gollum and Mordor in "Ramble On", the Misty Mountains in "Misty Mountain Hop", and Ringwraiths in "The Battle of Evermore"."

Yeah, so much for your "niche fanbase of a not-wildly known series".--Kenn

You don't have a "niche" book suddenly become a most influential BOOK of the entire last century, because of the movies made in 2000s. But I'm sure in Kenn's world, this is still him being right.

I don't know what faux-news source you get '25 million' before the movies, but you are wrong my dear. No where near to accurate. It sold 100 million BEFORE THE FILMS RELEASE.

The LOTR/Hobbit books have been wildly known and translated in multiple languages and NEVER STOPPED BEING IN PRINT for 30+ YEARS before Jackson ever made his movies. Yes, the movies have made it more popular, of course, and been discovered by new audiences, of course. But that does NOT translate to "niche" or "little known" in any way.

But I'm sure in Kenn's mind. It does.

And that's why no one really needs to attempt to engage him in serious discussion. He's just not living the same reality as the rest of us. Imagine, living in a world where LOTR didn't mean anything at all until 2000. How sad.

[Triceron]

My origional post i said most of its popularity came from after the films release, so my statement is correct isnt it, since more books sold after the films than before hand, it may of done decent for a book but its actual popularity came from the films, before it was popular for a niche fanbase but not a widely known series until the films otherwise it would of sold more than 25 million by the films release.

Do you have proof it was not widely known and a niche fanbase?

Cuz just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it's niche. I didn't hear of Harry Potter or Twilight until the movies came out for it, I still wouldn't say these were not popular series before the movies. The reason the movies are made was to capitalize on its popularity, and increase it exponentially.

[rhorle]

"Brawn estimates that 150 million copies of “The Lord of the Rings” have been sold worldwide, 50 million of those since Jackson’s films were released from 2001, plus 50 million copies of other Tolkien works."

Having a 3rd of your total sales sold in 6 years (2001 to 2007 the publication date of the article) indicates that the movies had a large boost to the popularity of the two books. 47 years to do 100 million. 6 years to do 50 million. While the poster might have problems with their approach the argument of the movies largely increasing the popularity of the movies is a sound one.

Just for perspective Harry Potter has sold over 500 million copies in 25 years. Even when factoring in The Hobbit it has still sold around double.

[Syegfryed]

Don't forget, Kenn also says LOTR wasn't a popular book series until the movies. These are his facts.

Straight up delusions, Lotr was one of, if not THE, most read book before the movies(excluding the bible ofc)

[rhorle]

Straight up delusions, Lotr was one of, if not THE, most read book before the movies(excluding the bible ofc)

It is impossible to prove how many times a book has been read but I doubt Lord of the Rings is the 1st ignoring holy books (the Bible and Qur'an are usually top 2). In the top 10? Sure. Don Quixote claims to have sold at least 500 million copies though I'm not sure how a book from the 1600's is accurately tracked.

[BeepBoo]

If more ppl like something than hate it that makes it good

Oh, you mean an Ad Populum fallacy?

No. Just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it is "objectively good." You just don't understand what objectivity is.

[kenn9530]

Straight up delusions, Lotr was one of, if not THE, most read book before the movies(excluding the bible ofc)

It sold less than 25 million copies before the films so you are having delusions, 125 million plus is because of the films.

- - - Updated - - -

snip.

It seems you are unable to read, this debunks all your information since there is no article that actually states pre film sales, you are just talking BS as usual and making an assumption without relevant information since all data is from after the first films release.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181120...249-story.html

Clay Harper remembers the first time he saw a screening of the New Line Cinema adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. It was the late fall of 2001, and the first of the three Peter Jackson-directed Tolkien films was set to open Dec. 17.

"I was a basket case," Harper says. "I'd seen the trailer and clips, of course. The buzz was there. But still ... you just never know. I was hopeful, but I had my fingers crossed."

As a fan of Tolkien's epic saga for more than 25 years, he had a book lover's anxiety about seeing a favorite work through the eyes of someone else. Was New Zealand really going to look like Middle-Earth? Was Ian McKellan the best choice to play Gandalf? How much of the book had been cut?

As publisher Houghton Mifflin's Tolkien projects director, Harper also had a lot on the line professionally. Houghton Mifflin, the official U.S. publisher of Tolkien's work for more than 60 years, had paid a hefty sum to acquire the rights to the movie tie-in volumes. What if the film trilogy was a disaster? Would they lose an entire generation of potential readers?

"Just in case, we put the new editions out early before the movie so we could sell as many copies as possible," he says. "And to New Line's great credit, they did a great job of encouraging people to read Tolkien."

As it turned out, they also had made a great movie. And it paid off for Houghton Mifflin.

"In the history of the company, there have only been two million-copy best sellers," Harper says. "One was Tolkien's The Silmarillion in 1977, and the other was The Lord of the Rings in 2001."

What has happened since this has been "phenomenal," he says. "Because the movies come out late in the year, the sales spill over into the next. The books just keep selling, and we're not done yet."

The latest addition -- and edition -- to the Tolkien publishing program (dozens of volumes by Tolkien, about Tolkien, about the movies, etc., plus readers guides, calendars and gift books) is a $20 collectible one-volume paperback. The cover features the Dark Lord Sauron's gloved hand with an embossed ring -- as in the "One Ring to rule them all/ One Ring to find them, /One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" legend, which appears in its entirety on a color frontispiece. The deluxe edition also has flaps that fold out to show color versions of the original maps of Middle-Earth.

"These maps have been in the hardcover, but we wanted to do something special for the final film," Harper says. "The one-volume movie tie-in is the cornerstone of the Tolkien publishing program."

More than 2 million copies of the one-volume trade paperback have been sold in the United States the past three years. More than 25 million Tolkien-related books have been sold.

"That's just in the U.S.," Harper says. "Tolkien has been a cultural phenomenon for years. The Lord of the Rings has sold 50 million copies worldwide. But there's been nothing like the audience growth we've experienced coinciding with the new movies. I know of no other publishing experience like it."


Peter Jackson