Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!shp
From: shp@crystal.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Sequels
Message-ID: <470@crystal.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 21:03:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: crystal.470
Posted: Thu Jun 13 21:03:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 10:17:34 EDT
References: <2188@topaz.ARPA> <242@azure.UUCP> <15015@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: The Life Is A Rock Foundation
Lines: 16

> [...]
> 
> Saying sequels are automatically bad is silly...remember that
> Lord of the Rings is a sequel to the Hobbit (and I refuse to
> listen to anyone who says the Hobbit is superior, much as it's
> a nice story).

	"The Lord of the Rings" isn't a sequel to "The Hobbit."  Not really,
    anyway.  Kind of like chapter two isn't really a sequel to chapter one, nor
    is chapter one really a sequel to the preface.  Go back and re-read your
    Tolkien, if you do not understand.

	Not that this is really relevent; I just didn't want to let it pass as
    it stands (your point and deleted argument are QUITE valid).

	=shp