[Timboli]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then they should seek out other books they do love. There's no shortage. Certainly not enough to consider abridging existing books that are already loved.

You do realize I am not suggesting replace the original ... it would still be there, easily available.

How does modifying the book like I am suggesting, hurt anything?

A story is the story, so there is no replacement, whether modified or not. The LOTR still has plenty of merit with the suggested changes, and nothing really compares.

Probably not all, but it's hard to tell. There may be some. The "moron edition" moniker in my opinion isn't targeted toward those might read such a book, it's targeted toward those who think pre-existing books should be abridged/streamlined/edited so that they can be enjoyed by those whose tastes the original doesn't meet.

That smacks of snobbishness, even arrogance ... far too black & white.
If someone can really enjoy the story with the suggested changes made, what is wrong with that? Clearly it meets their taste after some tweaking.

As you yourself have already said; it's best if the movies are judged as separate ventures/adaptations. So there's no need to justify the paring down of the story. Very few (if any) movie adaptations of a book could possibly contain every aspect of its source material. Adjusting for time constraints is perfectly normal. The paring-down in a movie adaptation is not just a matter of "taste", but also one of necessity. People can't move into a movie theater for a week to see the unabridged Lord of the Rings.

Clearly you missed my point.
A pared back version can still be worthwhile. Whether that be as a movie, because you don't have any choice, or a book with suitable changes.
What matters in the end, is how much is changed, that is integral.

There is, however, no similar time constraint when it comes to books. No adaptation needs to take place from book to adapted book for logistical reasons. So any such removal of content would be from a standpoint of pure taste. Not a same-same comparison at all.

Not sure what you are really saying here, that makes a difference.
It is always about taste and choice and circumstance.
If Tolkien had written his story today, editors would have made it significantly different to how it turned out. In many ways it is very much a product of the times.
That's not saying that sex or violence etc need be forced into the story. The story would still be pretty damn good without needing to add any of that, and I am sure many modern editors would agree, though they would certainly be more concerned about pacing, keeping the story flowing etc.

The book(s) already exists. Those the book's style doesn't appeal to have the movies, and they have tons other books that will fit their requirements. They're not entitled/required to love The Lord of the Rings books. Changing the book to fit the audience (especially if it's not done because of complexity, but merely a want for things to be more "streamlined") would be a moron move. And it probably wouldn't work. A Tolkien Estate approved Readers Digest Condensed version of Lord of the Rings would sell about as many copies as any Readers Digest Condensed version of any book did.

When it comes to beloved books, people want the original book, or they want a different book. The author (or the author's estate) are under no obligation to make their work something other than it is to suit those who wanted a different kind of book. Not when those "different kinds of books" already exist in droves.

Just not the same, as I have already stated, and clearly this is just your own view, and not based on sound fact, just personal bias.