Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa
From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Sequels
Message-ID: <277@azure.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 05:34:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.277
Posted: Tue Jun 18 05:34:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 06:03:54 EDT
References: <2188@topaz.ARPA> <242@azure.UUCP> <15015@watmath.UUCP> <470@crystal.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 18

> > [...]
> > 
> > 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.
> 
Have you ever read Tolkien's Biography.  It says there that Tolkien wrote 
LOTR on the request of the publisher who wanted more stories about hobbits.
Tolkien never intended LOTR to be the premiere work on Middle-Earth. That
honor was to go to The Silmarillian.

Chris Andersen