Lord of the Rings

[jayson]

What are your views on his nature?

an embodiment of nature itself.

This seems to be closest to Tolkien's opinion of what Tom was/is.

I think "nature itself" is a bit of an overstatement of Bombadil's identity.

"Eldest, that's what I am ... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn ... he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside." (Fellowship of the Ring)

From The Silmarillion (and the writings related to it) we learn of the first raindrops and the growth of the first trees, et al. This was the work of the Valar, making real the themes revealed to them in the music of Eru Iluvatar. That Tom remembers these things suggests to me that he is a Maia, one of the lesser "spirits" that are the people of the Valar. As such he could have been among them when they first came to Middle Earth. I can say for sure he is not a Valar, because they are all named in The Silmarillion and he is not one of them.

The part that stands out to me from the above statement is the "...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside." This suggests a very specific time period to me. When the Valar first entered the world (from the "Outside") Melkor was not yet "The Dark Lord." Not long after, when the works of shaping the world had begun, then he showed himself to be the opponent of the other Valar, and became the first Dark Lord as he sought to dominate all within Middle Earth. He was defeated by Tulkas and banished for a time back to the Outer Dark (the "Outside"). The time Bombadil seems to be referring to sounds to me like the time he arose again and came from the "Outside" this time to set up shop in Middle Earth." My point is that Bombadil could not have preceded any of the Valar.

Another clue lies in the discussion of Bombadil at Rivendell. It is stated that his power is limited, confined to his particular area of influence. He may have a large sphere of influence in the Old Forest itself, but outside of that, he has little, or none.

My personal thought is that he is a Maia, and that he may very well have been among the first, if not the first, to actually reside in Middle Earth itself [thus explaining the "eldest" thing]. He may be the spirit of the Old Forest if you will [this would explain his influence over Old Man Willow].

[sarah]

Has anyone listened to The Lord of the Rings on audio? I just noticed that my library has all the books on CD. I'm thinking I need to commit to that after the holidays.

[jayson]

I have listened to them many times. The audio books are very well done.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Another clue lies in the discussion of Bombadil at Rivendell. It is stated that his power is limited, confined to his particular area of influence. He may have a large sphere of influence in the Old Forest itself, but outside of that, he has little, or none...

Agreed.
But was it said (or hinted) in the same discussion that his sphere of influence has now shrunk to that small area (Old Forest + Barrow Downs?) - meaning that at some past time his influence was a lot wider?

*EDIT*
No, never listened to LotR on Audio (or ANY Book on Audio! (Luddite!)).

[Matt]

Has anyone listened to The Lord of the Rings on audio? I just noticed that my library has all the books on CD. I'm thinking I need to commit to that after the holidays.

They are GREAT on audio Sarah

I would highly recommend them highly.

And you were right, The Host is good.

[turtlex]

There are a couple of different versions on audio, if I recall.

Do you know who is reading?

[jayson]

But was it said (or hinted) in the same discussion that his sphere of influence has now shrunk to that small area (Old Forest + Barrow Downs?) - meaning that at some past time his influence was a lot wider?

Absolutely, because the Old Forest once covered such a large swath of Middle Earth. Of course, were Bombadil a representation of Nature as a whole, his influence was unlikely to shrink to such a specific and small area. Bombadil as Nature also discounts the Valar who are immensely tied to nature (particularly Yavanna and Vana). Ultimately I see Bomadil as a powerful Maia like Melian who concentrated their power in a particular area inside of which they were much more powerful than they'd have been outside.

And Turtlex, I recommend the versions read by Rob Inglis (sp?).

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I have not read all 231 comments yet, as I have not finished reading the series. (I am halfway through The Two Towers), but I had to ask this question.

Did anyone else find the songs to be distracting? I dont care for that aspect of these books at all. I was just wondering what others thought about them.

[jayson]

Fair question Browning's Childe. Speaking for myself, I love the songs. If this is your first time through LotR is it safe to assume you've not read The Silmarillion? The songs carry a lot of the history that adds depth and context to the Third Age. Knowing the stories behind what those songs are about, I treasure their presence in LotR as they make it seem that much more "real." That said, I can see how as a first time reader they can break the narrative flow. I honestly can't remember how I felt about them the first time I read it because I was 12 then.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I thought that would be the case. I read through several of the songs several times, trying to understand them, and felt like I was listening to a conversation between people I didnt know, about people I didnt know, and it didnt interest me at all. Some of the songs are very long and have been a chore to read. Maybe on a reread, I will enjoy them more.

[jayson]

If it's any comfort, you're not really "missing" anything per se by not quite getting what the songs are about. I mean, the story won't make less sense or anything. I just find the history makes it resonate on more levels. When you see there's a straight line from the earliest stories in The Silmarillion right through to the "present" in LotR it really strikes a chord. There's a line that really brings it home for me, but I don't think you've gotten there yet so I will wait (not that it spoils anything, but better you hear it first from Tolkien not me)

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Thanks.. We'll see what I think at the end. Mayhap opinions change.

[cody44]

I think its about time I get around to reading through this series again. I've read The Hobbit a few times and The Salmarillion once, but it's been about six years since I read through the Lord of the Rings.

I feel the characters calling me back. I miss the shire, and the fellowship. Maybe I'll start 2010 with a reread.

Has anyone here read the work that his son Christopher collected together; Children of Hurin or the Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun?

[jhanic]

Childrun of Hurin is good if you like Silmarillion. Legend is a long poem written in the style of the Norse Eddas. I enjoyed it (because I liked the Eddas) but it may be an acquired taste.

John

[Lily-sai]

Oh dang. This is going to be a long post, I just stumbled upon this thread for the first time.

First off:

Guys.
Help me.
I couldn't finish the first book (the damn mountain).
I fell asleep 3 times during the first movie... what should I do?

My only hope is Brian.
Maybe for him I will be able to read this series.

It seems to be amazing, nice, interesting and beautiful... but still it always beats me.

I think I will give it another try, Jean. There are too many people out there who are important to me and love it a lot.

Yes. That's the only reason why I, too, am going to give it another try. It's sitting on the shelf now (the shelf dangerously sags) and looking at me reproachfully.

Did you both give LotR another try?

R_of_G: I am not sure. I read LotR twice - the first time before I knew any English, so I read it in very good (as I understood later) Russian translation; the second time in English, because I had hoped the translation was poor, not good, and the original would be better; well, it wasn't. It's just not the kind of literature I can appreciate. I am not sure it is really "issues": as I said, I find the book boring, lacking viable character or any passable dialog, poorly written, and, generally, reflecting the author's inability to differ between collecting lore and writing novels. I think it is liked mostly by "visual" readers, who can "see" what they read; also by those (I believe often they are one and the same people) who love fantasy as genre, so can disregard the weaknesses of the text. For people who love mostly reading words - text - and appreciate first and foremost the purely verbal constituent (rather than the mythology created/collected by the author, descriptions, action etc) this particular novel is, I am afraid, hardly acceptable (and I have the misfortune to belong to that extremity). Most readers, are, I believe, in between, that is, if other constituents are sound, they can close their eyes on poor writing.

(as for audio books in general, I can't listen to them at all, I am sorry... )

Methinks you're onto something, Jean. I'm a very visual person, so it wasn't a problem for me to kind of "flow" along the story. I didn't really read the words, I lived in them, so I'm not really capable of reading Tolkien critically. I just go on and step into Middle-Earth and that's it.

Alatar and Pallando?

By unnamed, I meant unnamed within LotR. You correctly point out that they do have names, and those you list sound correct without having the books in front of me.

Yes, I cheated. I used our reference books. I only found their names by looking in David Day's "A-Z Of Tolkien". I'm actually unsure where in Tolkien's writings it comes from.

Oh, David Day's Tolkien books are awesome. His 'Tolkien Bestiary' has some of the most beautiful drawings of elves I've ever seen, especially Galadriel. Sadly, I don't remember the artist's name right now, as the book is waiting in the storage to be moved here along with a thousand other books.. sigh.

Greetings Tolkien fans (and the the not-so-much crowd, too).

I'm one of the magical Tet of the 12, as I read the Hobbit and Trilogy at that age, too. I've read them every summer since then, with the exception of this summer when I was reading the Wolves and then Song of Susannah. So I have read the Tolkien books 21 times. I read them in book form for most of those, but have found that audio is simply easier for me to deal with, as I can listen while relaxing, or strolling, and so on.

....

Ooooo, is there a magical tet of 12? I read LotR when I was 12 as well. Strange.

First, to give my answer to the direct question: Frodo did indeed succumb to the power of the Ring, and but for Gollum, would have succumbed I fear to Sauron when he arrived to claim it - & there goes the whole ball-game! But then we must remember that not Elrond, nor Galadriel nor even Gandalf trusted themselves not to succumb to the Ring. Frodo's achievement to get so far was amazing.

On the matter of Frodo sailing into the west. I agree wholeheartedly with R_of_G, except in the matter of Frodo (& Bilbo & Gimli) 's possible return to Middle Earth? I would think that unlikely (at minimum surely such would have been recorded by Sam (or Merry or Pippin or whomever was then the keeper of the Book). I 'believe' that they passed away, in the fullness of time, in the Undying Lands (which would have been healing, but not undying, for these mortals). But of course we can have no proof either way on this one.

I believe as well that Frodo healed in Undying Lands, but didn't become immortal. For some reason I seem to remember something like that the brightness of Aman is too much for mortals Ilúvatar didn't grant the eternal life to, and their lifespan shortens considerably and they eventually go to the Halls of Mandos. I may have just made that up all myself. um.

Add into the mix the fact that at one point Frodo had a chance and plenty of reason to kill Gollum. But didn't. So in a way, by not killing Gollum he allowed the quest to succeed.

That's a good point Telynn. Perhaps ka guided Frodo into not killing him then.

Of course it was ka.

Thanks for that.
If the Great Man wrote it, in any context, at any time, on any scrap of paper, then that's good enough for me.

That was pretty much my motivation for reading The History of Middle Earth stuff. I'm enormously grateful to Christopher Tolkien for the insight into his father's process. Reading the drafts and revisions and notes you really see how the stories evolved. For the Tolkien-obsessed like myself, it was the most fascinating thing to read.

The HoME books are indeed a very fascinating read. I was shocked how Tolkien originally intended Nienna to be Fui, quite a merciless and dark character. She sent some poor human souls to Avathar, an empty and cold land, to wait until the Dagor Dagorath. :shudders: Luckily Tolkien decided later that the fate of humans is unknown to even the valar, and they are free of the bonds of the World.

I was also intrigued by Túrin's supposed comeback in the Last Battle. I get a great satisfation when I imagine him, Eärendil and Tulkas beating the sheet out of Morgoth.

I'll maybe write more later, but I'll stop for now. Anyway, one reason I love Tolkien must be that he loved Finnish language and folklore. Quenya is based on Finnish, and Túrin's tale is based on one of stories in Kalevala, our legends. Minus the dragon.

i'm a language freak, if you didn't know already...

Aurë entuluva, my friends!
(the day shall come again)

[ManOfWesternesse]

.... but I'll stop for now......

No, nO! Don't stop!

You read LotR at 12 too?
I was 16 myself when I first read it, and have read it over 30 times (no exact count) in the 30 years since.
My son read it at 10/11 and loved it (he's read it 3 times now I think in the past 2/3 years).

I saw a few days ago that the "Born of Hope" film has been released online (it's a low-budget movie made by fans and centres on the youth of Aragorn.)
I've been looking forward to seeing it as it's pretty authentic looking - I'm saving it for over the x-mas hols.
Link:- http://www.bornofhope.com/

[cozener]

There's a lot of good stories that could be extrapolated from Middle-earth, the Battle of Dale for instance.

Ooooo, is there a magical tet of 12? I read LotR when I was 12 as well. Strange.

There must be something about 12. That's when I first read it too. It's also when a friend of mine first read it. Maybe this is just the kind of book that appeals to tweeners.

[John_and_Yoko]

I think I was 20 when I first read the book. I do know I was grown-up, and had seen the live-action features.

Though technically I was 21 when I first read it properly....

[jhanic]

I was in my teens when I read it (I read it when it first came out in paperback in the US, probably about 1960 or so) and have read it numerous times since then. I just reread it last year. It's such a great story!

John

[Kronz]

I've been re-reading LOTR recently and thought I'd bump this thread. This is the third or fourth time reading them, but the first time in over ten years, and since the films came out. While I loved them before, a lot of the epic imagery was a little hard to visualize before the films. I read and re-read Helm's Deep as a kid trying to understand it, but without a working knowledge of medieval military terms it was kind of over my head. Now for some reason all that doesn't seem hard to read or understand at all. Age and further context helps some but I think the visualizations in Jackson's movies is perfectly spot-on. Alan Lee who has dozen dozens of great illustrations for reissues of the novels painted a lot of the landmarks and was hired by Jackson for the movies so I am even more impressed now with the visual aspects of the film. I am not too fond of the characterization of the film Hobbits but all the others are great. Once I finish re-reading the series I plan on watching all three long versions of the films to see how it compares with the novel fresh in my head.

Also I've been really fascinated with the lore of Tolkien and adored The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, generally dabbling in them while reading the proper LOTR. It adds so much, and that sense of depth and age I've never found anywhere else in literature. It set the standard high for fantasy lore and I can't help but compare The Dark Tower series as I read either it or LOTR. I am sure King isn't a linguist or lore-hound so I don't and never have expected a Simarillion style text from him but I'd really love it. The glimpses of ancient lost civilizations just fascinates me endlessly in both King and Tolkien. Though of course the point of both quests is very different and the relationship to our world is completely remote in Tolkien but intrinsic in King's stories. I get different things from both but can't help but compare them often.

I've just started listening to the audiobook Silmarillion while reading the text simultaneously and it's way more engaging than ever before. It is so stately and well-delivered that I think a lot more LOTR fans would find it interesting even if they struggle with it in text. You can find it on YouTube or download it elsewhere if you're savvy. It's such beautifully composed language even if it's alienating at first. I swear all that it takes to enjoy it though is the simple desire to know more, and to "get" all the references that detractors hold against the LOTR.