A Tolkien of Our Affection

It's hard to look at a phenomenon like Harry Potter and call it a flash in the pan, but when cast against the perennial, indefatigable popularity of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy … well, Harry's a muggle. Of course, Harry Potter fans only had to wait four years to see their beloved novel made into a film; most Tolkien fans have been anxiously anticipating opening day since adolescence — which, in some cases, could mean the 64 years since "The Hobbit"'s 1937 release.

And opening day is today. On the occasion of the release of The Fellowship of the Rings, the first film in the trilogy, Flak takes a look at one of the most enduring books of the century.

In fact, some consider "The Lord of the Rings" to be the book of the 20th century. T.A. Shippey makes the case for such a claim in his recent book, and Ben Arnoldy considers the argument blow-by-blow in a rebuttal that finds in Shippey's favor except for one crucial point.

Of course, many would say that "The Lord of the Rings" is a stand-alone work and that a film adaptation is bound to miss so much of what makes the book great. Granted, says James Norton, but just what's so bad about that?

There's also the small matter that "The Lord of the Rings" has already been made into a film — a disastrous animated feature directed by Ralph Bakshi. Andy Ross pokes at the rubble to find the lessons that the makers of the live-action version should heed.

And just who are the makers of the live-action version? If you don't already know, wagers Sean Weitner, you'll be amazed to discover the director is a splatter-movie savant, and more amazed still to learn why Tolkien aficionados are rallying around this dark-horse choice.

On the topic of aficionados rallying, well, Bob Cook thinks he's seen this before, tracing the development of rabid fandom back to Rudolph Valentino and even Shakespeare in a tour through pop culture history that they never taught you about in school.