I read this one in the actual "paper". I am on the pro side, of course, but even so I thought the second (pro) article of a completely different class to the first, which was risible. (Sorry to be rude -- but it was one of those "slagging off" pieces of journalism where you felt the writer had not even bothered to read the book).I wondered at the time why the Times chose to run that piece at this time. I guess it was becuase of the new musical, just opened in Canada. Seemed a bit of a space-filler to me, as we have all been there, done that, got the T shirt with pro- and anti- LOTR over the past few years as the movies and DVDs have been released and journalists scrabble around for copy. No new arguments here, is my take.
Right on both counts, Maxine: Nothing new here, though the pro piece at least had substance. The con piece was simply splenetic.