Lord of the Rings

[Spencer]

For all things Middle Earth. Great story, and I love it, but I'm not sure I understand the all encompassing fascination that many have with it. Discuss that, favorite moments, greater themes, how the movies compared to the books, whatever you like.

[Matt]

I used to drive for a living and the first time I was exposed to the story, I listened to it unabridged on tape. I had known of the Hobbit of course, but it was totally new for me.

The Ring itself is the main thing for me I believe. How poor little Froto has to carry it on that impossible mission. Its like, when you first hear what he has to do you're all..."oh no, that's impossible. Can't be done" :lol:

I've read it again since then but I broke down on two occasions where it seemed like Froto and one of the others was dead. I was horribly confused in many places about who was who and what was what. The weird part about that is the movies really helped to clarify a bunch of that shit for me.

Like saying it to a 6 year old. :cyclops:

[Spencer]

I was horribly confused in many places about who was who and what was what.

Me too. I had no clue where folks were or if we were going in chronological order, or jumping back and forth in time, especially in The Two Towers book. Also, calling two main characters Sauron and Saruman led to many near anneurysms. :lol:

[Matt]

:lol:

Y'know...I had that same problem.

[Spencer]

and damn if I STILL can't figure out the relationship and/or history between Gandalf and Saruman.

[Telynn]

Gandalf and Sauraman were the same beings. They were a group of beings sent from the west to deal with Sauron. I think they were maiar, but not sure on that. If you read The Similarillian, you will either get all the history or get REAL confused. I ended up with a little of both, but it has been a while since I read it.

[She-Oy]

I'd love to be able to read them, honestly I would, in fact, I have a beautiful set of the hardbound books that were a gift to Drew (he was REALLY into the movies, so we thought he might like the books a little later in life). But the language is scary, considering half of the words are just made up by Tolkien himself...and I've heard he goes into really deep about the geography of Middle Earth...I'm just not into that kind of description I guess. Hell, Roland's MidWorld threw me for a loop.

[Telynn]

Ok, here is a quote from The Silmarillion.


Even as the first shadows were felt in Mirkwood there appeared in the west of Middle-earth the Istari, whom the Men called the Wizards. None knew at that time whence they were, save Cirdan of the Havens, and only to Elrond and to Galadriel did he reveal that they came over the Sea. But afterwards it was said among the Elves that they were messangers sent by the Lords of the West to contest the power of Sauron, if he should arise again, and to move Elves and Men and all living things of good will to valiant deeds.

They weren't Maiar. I knew that didn't sound right. I think Sauron was a Maiar, which was, for lack of a better term, a lesser God. A servant, sort of.

[Telynn]

I'd love to be able to read them, honestly I would, in fact, I have a beautiful set of the hardbound books that were a gift to Drew (he was REALLY into the movies, so we thought he might like the books a little later in life). But the language is scary, considering half of the words are just made up by Tolkien himself...and I've heard he goes into really deep about the geography of Middle Earth...I'm just not into that kind of description I guess. Hell, Roland's MidWorld threw me for a loop.

I have to admit, that even though I read the books many times I would skim through some of the longer descriptive passages. In fact it was after I had read them 2 or 3 times before I actually read the whole battle of Helms Deep. I was like "Oh, shit! How did I miss that?"

[Jean]

I was horribly confused in many places about who was who and what was what.

Me too. I had no clue where folks were or if we were going in chronological order, or jumping back and forth in time, especially in The Two Towers book. Also, calling two main characters Sauron and Saruman led to many near anneurysms. :lol:
This is one of the reasons why I dislike the book. If the storyline is hard to follow, it means it is poorly written. He was so engrossed in mythology that he didn't bother to articulate the story, or to make the characters viable, or to write anything resembling enjoyable dialog. It may be all good as a compendium of myths, but only (at best) mediocre as prose.

[Darkthoughts]

I found him to be a mixture of both Jean.

He loses some of his great scenes with his over descriptive style and complicated histories - such as Helm's Deep. I was the same as Tel and skimmed the books alot to begin with. I have to say - wtching the movies helped me visualise things like the battles a lot more clearly.

But, he is good at dialogue and character development, some of my favourite scenes are conversations between the hobbits, they're very relaxed and natural - very enjoyable reading. I think it's why I prefer The Hobbit to LotR on the whole. It gets to the point without so much meandering through the mythology.

[Spencer]

I think my main problem is that a lot of important information I felt I must have totally skimmed over in the story or just not understood wasn't that at all, it's that the info wasn't even IN the story, it's in The Similarillian, or one of the appendicies, anywhere but the story I'm reading where the info would be useful. I think some of this, especially the Arwen/Aragorn and Sauron/Saruman backstories, could have been covered in the main story in lieu of some of the longer descriptive passages.

[Matt]

I'd love to be able to read them, honestly I would, in fact, I have a beautiful set of the hardbound books that were a gift to Drew (he was REALLY into the movies, so we thought he might like the books a little later in life). But the language is scary, considering half of the words are just made up by Tolkien himself...and I've heard he goes into really deep about the geography of Middle Earth...I'm just not into that kind of description I guess. Hell, Roland's MidWorld threw me for a loop.

I have to admit, that even though I read the books many times I would skim through some of the longer descriptive passages. In fact it was after I had read them 2 or 3 times before I actually read the whole battle of Helms Deep. I was like "Oh, shit! How did I miss that?"

This is the reason I liked listening to them so much. Its like being force feed every word. :lol:

[sai delgado]

I read all three books when I was around 12 and I thought that they were very good books, although very descriptive to the extent that it kept veering off topic and I had to refresh what was going on in the actual plot after reading 3 pages of description of the scenery and history and then returning back to dialogue. I do prefer the films a lot more to the books; I have read the books a few times over the last few years, but I find it harder to stick to finishing them because there are so many parts that just drag on.

[ManOfWesternesse]

I first read LotR when I was 16 - back in the late 70's.
I fell in love with it right away & I've been there ever since. I've read it 30+ times over the years. Great, great story.

[jayson]

I have been a huge fan [read as "geek"] of LotR since I first read them at age 12 [I am now 37]. For the record, I am a huge Tolkien nerd in that I am also a big fan of the "History of Middle Earth" series that his son Christopher has put out documenting the development of his father's epic tales. That said, I certainly understand how some find Tolkien's descriptive prose to be a bit overwhelming at times and a distraction from the story at hand. Personally, I think this eye for detail of his gives the story that much more depth, but I see where it could hang someone up.

Just a note on Gandalf and Saruman, they [as well as Radagast and the other two unnamed Istari] were of the Maiar, lesser "deities" than the Valar. In "Unfinished Tales" there is a lengthy essay on the nature and purpose of the Istari. Ultimately though it presents the question of whether or not it is even necessary to fully know who Gandalf is. Part of me enjoys the depth of knowing the full history of Middle Earth and how Gandalf and the War of the Ring fit into the overall picture. On the other hand, I can see where one can identify with Pippin's take on Gandalf in the final books and know that he is a lot more important that you ever thought he was, but still not quite grasp precisely how.

If anyone ever wants to discuss any other LotR/Tolikien specifics, I am always a willing participant in that conversation.

[Erin]

My boyfriend is a huge Lord of the Rings fan. I had never read the books until he convinced me to earlier this year. I was deeply impressed. What a wonderful story. I'm a fan of a lot of description in a book, so I ate up a lot of the parts that many don't seem to like.

And I named my new puppy Gimli. :D

[Jean]

I am a fan of a lot of description, too. It's not what is in the book that annoyed me, it's what isn't there (characters, dialogs, sense of humor, easy flow of storytelling. I know that some people were able to find at least some of those there. I wasn't.)

[Erin]

I do agree with you on that part. If there was anything that I could have changed about the books, it would have been more character development and adding more humor. There was such potential for rich, deeper characters that wasn't taken. Also, I treasured the brief flashes of humor we did see. Like Gimli and Legolas counting the number of Orcs they kill at Helms Deep. Too bad there wern't more.

[ManOfWesternesse]

......
And I named my new puppy Gimli. :D

Well done Erin!

R of G - I also read The Silmarillion + Book of Lost Tales + the Unfinished Tales (Vols 1 & 2 ?) - but all many years back now.
Am tempted to a re-read of the Sil, at least, sometime soon - though I'll have to buy a new copy as I believe my brother made off with the old one!

I can see what people mean here about the language too.
And the lack of character-development. Was that, at least, just a product of the time? (I guess not - just a product of the strange & wonderful mind of JRRT!)

[jayson]

R of G - I also read The Silmarillion + Book of Lost Tales + the Unfinished Tales (Vols 1 & 2 ?) - but all many years back now.
Am tempted to a re-read of the Sil, at least, sometime soon - though I'll have to buy a new copy as I believe my brother made off with the old one!


I think reading the Silmarillion allows for a much greater depth of appreciation of the LotR books. I don't think it's "necessary" reading to appreciate the series, but it adds greater context, particularly to understanding what has really been achieved with the victory of Aragorn and the re-unification of the two kingdoms of Gondor, particularly the growth of the tree, bringing everything full circle with the destruction of the trees in the Silmarillion.

[Telynn]

I do agree with you on that part. If there was anything that I could have changed about the books, it would have been more character development and adding more humor. There was such potential for rich, deeper characters that wasn't taken. Also, I treasured the brief flashes of humor we did see. Like Gimli and Legolas counting the number of Orcs they kill at Helms Deep. Too bad there wern't more.

Now to me, some of what was wrong with the movie was the character development, or more importantly the friendships. In the books you can't get two closer friends than Aragon and Gandalf. But in the movies they hardly say two words to each other. Even when traveling together they never showed the two of them with their heads together trying to figure out the right path. Even in Moria. And in the book Gandalf relyed heavily on him. Little stuff like that was what I missed.

[Still Servant]

Did anybody see the Entertainment Weekly issue a few months back dedicated to a possible Hobbit movie?

It had a huge article talking about the lawsuit that has been holding it up and how there may be a resolution soon. It talked about how important it would be to have Peter Jackson back as director. It also offered alternative directors in case Jackson was not able to direct.

Jackson did mention something about making The Hobbit into two films. Mainly so they can make double the money. He also mentioned something about another possible movie based in the Lord of the Rings universe.

Interesting stuff.

[jayson]

Now to me, some of what was wrong with the movie was the character development, or more importantly the friendships. In the books you can't get two closer friends than Aragon and Gandalf. But in the movies they hardly say two words to each other. Even when traveling together they never showed the two of them with their heads together trying to figure out the right path. Even in Moria. And in the book Gandalf relyed heavily on him. Little stuff like that was what I missed.

I agree, the Gandalf/Aragorn dynamic was very watered down in the films.

On the subject of the films, my issue was not so much the subtraction of certain elements from the books. They are very long complex books and obviously not everything in them can make it to the screen unless each film was going to be 6 hours long. Like with the above Aragorn/Gandalf thing I do think they eliminated some stuff that I found integral to the characters, but again, subtraction I can understand.

What I could not tolerate with the films was the addition of material that was not in the books. Given that there is so much taken out to make the film a reasonable length, there is no excuse for wasting even a single second of film time with things that never happened in the books. For example, if somebody can show me in the books where Aragorn is sent over a cliff by a warg and almost drowns while having a dream-visit with Arwen then please do because I have read it dozens of times and I've yet to find that part. Or the part where elves from Lothlorien come to defend Helm's Deep. From what I read, Lorien had its own invasion to deal with and no elves to spare. So much more, but those of you who read the books know what I mean.

To compress an existing work to make it adaptable for film is something they teach you in writing school [at least they taught me]. Never once was I taught to introduce new material.

I enjoyed the films on certain levels... the casting was good, the scenery and cgi and the overall look was fantastic. the story was horrible, and to have made such an amazing story so horrible, jackson and his two co-writers should be ashamed.

[jayson]

Jackson did mention something about making The Hobbit into two films. Mainly so they can make double the money.

And there's the problem with Peter Jackson. There is NO need for The Hobbit to be two films. Unlike LotR, the Hobbit is a rather straightforward story, and can so easily be adapted into a film... well into ANOTHER film I should say as it has already been an animated film. If he wants to make it two films, it's because like with LotR he has new material to add in. Well that and the money. Both reasons disgust me.

[Erin]

It's been ahwhile since I've seen the films, but wasn't another addition adding many more Arwen scenes? Like when she rides the dying Frodo over the river while being chased by Ringwraiths? It was a male elf in the book. Glorifindel or something like that.

I just remember watching the films and thinking she had a much smaller role in the novels.

[jayson]

It's been ahwhile since I've seen the films, but wasn't another addition adding many more Arwen scenes? Like when she rides the dying Frodo over the river while being chased by Ringwraiths? It was a male elf in the book. Glorifindel or something like that.

I just remember watching the films and thinking she had a much smaller role in the novels.

Erin, you are correct. It is Glorfindel who carries Frodo across the river and into Rivendell. It is not uncommon for screenwriters to merge two characters, or give the actions of one to another to make it so there are less characters in the film [look at "To Kill a Mockingbird" for instance where at least 3 of the books female characters are compressed into one].

As for Arwen's role in the book, aside from the lengthy appendix on her relationship with Aragorn, Arwen makes one appearance only, at the dinner the night before the council of Elrond, and she doesn't speak, she is only referenced as being there and being Elrond's daughter.

It is the subject of Arwen over which I take the most exception to PJ's film version. I feel he completely misrepresented the Elrond/Arwen/Aragorn dynamic. He virtually ignored explaining precisely who Aragorn was [as the true descendants of the Numenorean kings, Aragorn ties directly into Elrond's own family history as his brother Elros was the first King of Numenor]. In the books there is much about this history which fuels Elrond's decisions about his daughter and Aragorn. In the films Elrond is portrayed as a human-hating Elf who doesn't want his daughter to be with the guy he doesn't like [like a million other movies]. The relationship between Aragorn and Elrond is MUCH MUCH deeper than that.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Jackson did mention something about making The Hobbit into two films. Mainly so they can make double the money.

And there's the problem with Peter Jackson. There is NO need for The Hobbit to be two films. Unlike LotR, the Hobbit is a rather straightforward story, and can so easily be adapted into a film... well into ANOTHER film I should say as it has already been an animated film. If he wants to make it two films, it's because like with LotR he has new material to add in. Well that and the money. Both reasons disgust me.

As I understood it, the proposal was to make 2 more films in total.
First one is The Hobbit.
Second one is the time between The Hobbit and the start of LotR. (White Council / Dol Guldor / Finding of Gollum / etc.... etc..) Material for that 2nd one might be sketchy but probably enough to create a base?


On the LotR films debate:-

I was quite happy with the expanded role of Arwen - worked out well I thought & at least the non-book moviegoers got some sense of who she was etc... - had Jackson followed the Book then they would have had not a clue as to who this great love of Aragorn's was.

Haldir & the elves at Helm's Deep? - not a bad ploy again for the movies. The Haradrim fought their own battles of course in the Book - but we only hear them referred to vaguely. Not unreasonable of PJ & Co to do what they did. Would have been impossible to have a 'separate' Elvish battle. Again the non-book public got a good sense that the Elves also fought Sauron. Otherwise they would have gone away thinking no one but the race of men (including the dead!) + 1 elf + 1 dwarf gave a damn.

I'm a huge LotR Book fan - but I thoroughly enjoyed the movies too - and they hav in no way spoiled my subsequent re-read's for me.

[Matt]

I love Brian's LOTR talk, not sure why...but I really do :wub:

[ManOfWesternesse]

Ah but methinks in R_of_G we've got a much bigger LotR Geek than me Matt!

[jayson]

Ah but methinks in R_of_G we've got a much bigger LotR Geek than me Matt!

Or just a more opinionated/obnoxious one. I don't diminish the LotR geekhood of anyone with as cool an avatar name as ManofWesternesse. So, since that is your handle, do you wish PJ had elaborated a bit more on just who the Dunedain really were? I mean he kep the name "Return of the King" but didn't really get very far in terms of depicting the history of Gondor and why there was no king, and how long there had been no king, and how the kingship ties into Numenor and how Sauron was the arch-enemy of the Numenoreans having caused their downfall and all. I don't think he "needed" to explain any of it to make it a workable film, but I know I'd have enjoyed it a bit more if he had. It's that depth of history that always gets me with Tolkien. There is a direct line running right from the early days of Valinor and the destruction of the two trees straight through to the crowning of Aragorn and the rebirth of the tree in Gondor that makes the whole thing seem so, well I guess "real" is the word I want here.

Either way, good to have others around to talk Tolkien with.:thumbsup:

[ManOfWesternesse]

....I don't diminish the LotR geekhood of anyone with as cool an avatar name as ManofWesternesse.....

:lol: - that's been my handle on pretty much every site I've ever registered at!
One thing I really,really,really missed from the films (and which would have been easily done imho) was the riding of the Grey Company from the north - with Halbarad and his kinsmen riding to Aragorn's aid ("... who rides in Rohan...?" - the hair is standing on my neck now just typing it!), and Ellodan and Elrohir with them. Ah! PJ - there was a missed chance....

I'll have to try to load my Banner from .net (& ThatPlace) here, If I can - had trouble last time I tried...... Matt? :lol:
It's a beautiful banner, with the winged crown and a ship west-bound - with the great quote " Out of the Great Sea to Middle Earth I am come, In this place I will abide, and my heirs, unto the ending of the world".
It was made for me by Miranoriel - who is known to many here.

maybe I can attach it here anyway so you can see it...
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z47/ManOfWesternesse/banner_lotr_Mira02_s.jpg

= yup! that worked!

[jayson]

One thing I really,really,really missed from the films (and which would have been easily done imho) was the riding of the Grey Company from the north - with Halbarad and his kinsmen riding to Aragorn's aid ("... who rides in Rohan...?" - the hair is standing on my neck now just typing it!), and Ellodan and Elrohir with them. Ah! PJ - there was a missed chance....

I waited and waited and waited for the Grey Company & the twins to arrive, but alas they never came. To me, the whole story from the arrival of Halbarad and the Grey Co. to their passage thru the Paths of the Dead and their arrival by sea to help swing the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is the heart of that book. Again, it's because of the previous history of the Dunedain and the symbolism of Aragorn arriving as a "Sea King" like his ancestors. I thought the scene where they unfurl the black flag on the ships to reveal the crest of Gondor would have been the single most powerful in the film [it still gives me chills when I read it] had PJ decided it was worthy.

[Matt]

....I don't diminish the LotR geekhood of anyone with as cool an avatar name as ManofWesternesse.....

:lol: - that's been my handle on pretty much every site I've ever registered at!
One thing I really,really,really missed from the films (and which would have been easily done imho) was the riding of the Grey Company from the north - with Halbarad and his kinsmen riding to Aragorn's aid ("... who rides in Rohan...?" - the hair is standing on my neck now just typing it!), and Ellodan and Elrohir with them. Ah! PJ - there was a missed chance....

I'll have to try to load my Banner from .net (& ThatPlace) here, If I can - had trouble last time I tried...... Matt? :lol:
It's a beautiful banner, with the winged crown and a ship west-bound - with the great quote " Out of the Great Sea to Middle Earth I am come, In this place I will abide, and my heirs, unto the ending of the world".
It was made for me by Miranoriel - who is known to many here.

maybe I can attach it here anyway so you can see it...
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z47/ManOfWesternesse/banner_lotr_Mira02_s.jpg

= yup! that worked!

I could get that one loaded to your sig if you like Brian. I...think its not too big but I would have to check.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Matt, that would be graetly appreciated, if you can.

Here's a smaller version - if the other proves too big.
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z47/ManOfWesternesse/banner_lotr_Mira02_ss.jpg

Say Thankee!

[ManOfWesternesse]

I waited and waited and waited for the Grey Company & the twins to arrive, but alas they never came. To me, the whole story from the arrival of Halbarad and the Grey Co. to their passage thru the Paths of the Dead and their arrival by sea to help swing the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is the heart of that book. Again, it's because of the previous history of the Dunedain and the symbolism of Aragorn arriving as a "Sea King" like his ancestors. I thought the scene where they unfurl the black flag on the ships to reveal the crest of Gondor would have been the single most powerful in the film [it still gives me chills when I read it] had PJ decided it was worthy.

Yes, that moment when all the hopes of the free peoples on the Pelennor Field seem dashed indeed to see the Black Ships in the Harlond - then - all of a sudden - the banner of the Kings is unfurled at the mast!!!!! Ah! magical stuff!

But I am slow to be over-critical of PJ - all-in-all I really appreciate what he (& they all!) did. They made a much better job of it than my fears looked for.

[Matt]

It should be there now Brian, you may have to post again to see it though.

[ManOfWesternesse]

It should be there now Brian, you may have to post again to see it though.

Bloody Hell! - I did'nt even have time to click my fingers! :lol:

Thank you very much indeed Matt! - yeah - looks kinda good, don't it!

[jayson]

Brian, the banner looks great!:thumbsup:

[Erin]

It looks really good! :D

[ManOfWesternesse]

It looks really good! :D

Yeah - kudos to Mira - she's talented.

[Matt]

Its very cool--when I saw it I thought..."that must be done now" :lol:

[Still Servant]

R_of_G

the story was horrible

Horrible? Come on, man. That's a little much I think. The story for Kangaroo Jack is horrible. You may not have liked some of the liberties the filmmakers took with the story, but it's far from horrible if you put it up against other films. Especially other films in its genre.

Also, I agree with you that the addition of some scenes was not needed. As Gollum would say (uses his raspy Gollum voice) "it's too risky."

That being said, I think I can explain why they put the Aragorn cliff scene in the movie. I think they wanted to create a little bit of suspense at that point in the film that would lead into Helms Deep. By putting Aragorn's life in peril, it shows the weight of the situation and puts the odds in even more favor of evil.

Also, by letting Aragorn ride into Helms Deep to lift the spirits of everybody, solidifies him as the hero he is starting to become. It's telling the audience member, "this guy is the man, watch out for him."

That scene also gave them the opportunity to further the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen. It also shows the viewer what is at stake.

I'm not sure how much that will fly with you. All I'm saying is the scene had a reason, it wasn't just thrown in there.

[jayson]

Horrible? Come on, man. That's a little much I think ... You may not have liked some of the liberties the filmmakers took with the story, but it's far from horrible if you put it up against other films. [QUOTE=Still Servant;73652]

It's an adaptation of an existing work so all I put it up against is the book. That is the problem I have with the story, that there already was a perfectly good story that needed some editing, but no additions. I find adding story to something like Tolkien insulting. If and when someone makes a film version of the Tower I for one will not be thrilled if there are scenes made up out of whole cloth like that. The LotR story endures for generations precisely because it's so well-formed as it is.

[QUOTE=Still Servant;73652]Also, I agree with you that the addition of some scenes was not needed. As Gollum would say (uses his raspy Gollum voice) "it's too risky."

...

I'm not sure how much that will fly with you. All I'm saying is the scene had a reason, it wasn't just thrown in there.

I agree with your view on why they thought those scenes might be necessary, I just disagree that they were necessary. It seems to me that they sacrificed too much of the book to please a movie audience who may never have read the books. Now, I don't have any issue with people who had never read the books seeing the movies, but I don't like the idea of tinkering too much with the story to make it more of a movie, which is to say, to make it more like other movies. A little more Arwen than in the books would have been fine, but she was not by any means even a supporting character in the book, yet the film is all about her and Aragorn. Don't get me wrong, I love a good love story [Beren & Luthien's story in the Silmarillion is a real heartbreaker] but to me Aragorn's story is as much a love for his people as it is for his Queen.

[Telynn]

R of G, I got to agree with you about the cliff. When he went over that cliff, my husband and I looked at each other at the same time with big WTF looks on our faces. I would have loved a picture of that look we passed.

The other thing added, which I don't think added anything to the movies was the whole Saruman wanting the ring for Sauron thing. He wanted it for himself and was using (or so he thought) Sauron to get it. And he told Gandalf that. Not that whole let's work with Sauron crap. And Saruman didn't cause the freaking snowstorm! Stuff like that didn't make sense to add. It didn't shorten the story any, and I don't think it was less confusing then the way the book went.

But oh, well.... I don't get paid the big bucks so they don't listen to me.

[Still Servant]

R of G, I know you're not so fond of the movies, so I wouldn't expect you to have purchased the extended editions, but a lot of the added scenes are stuff that was added for fans of the books.

So if you haven't seen the extended editions, you might have a new found appreciation for the films upon watching them.

In case you can't tell, I have a deep need to make everybody I come in contact with love these films. Just ask my family and friends, they find it very annoying. It's a disease.

[Telynn]

This is totally my little opinion, but do you know what I REALLY wanted to see in the movie, what I thought would be a really killer visual? The Ent attack on Isengard. In the book it is so vivid, the description of their feet and hands growing roots and literally breaking everything apart. That COULD have been wicked. Could have been..... *sigh*

Don't worry Servant, I still liked the movies.

[Still Servant]

Don't worry Servant, I still liked the movies.

Phew.

*checks Tel off his list*

I really wanted to see Prince Imrahil (sp?) in the movies. I always liked him.

[Erin]

Some scenes in the movie were so visually stunning and beautiful. Like the scene in Fellowship of the Ring (I think it might just be in the extended version?) where Frodo and Sam see the Elves walking through the woods on their way to leave Middle Earth. The elves are glowing and some really moving music is playing. That scene really took my breath away.

[Sai Joshua]

I think the thing we need to keep in focus here is how they brought the world of Tolkien to life for many people who had never read the books. I read the books as a teen and saw the Bakishi Cartoons. To be honest with you, I consider myself a pretty voracious intelligent reader, but I had a few problems reading LOTR. My 2 daughters have watched all of the films with me and my 13 yr old really wanted to start reading the books after she saw the movies. She came to me with this "deer in the headlights" look and asked me " How do you read these?, Am I missing something?" She is still trying, but the movies at least gave her a start in figuring things out. She has rewatched the movies a few times now. And on Peter Jackson, I am not mad at this man for what he did. Remember, Hollywood does not make movies of this size for a select few to watch. They still have to pay the bills at the end of all of this. I think PJ and Weta works gave us some wonderful movies, not entirely accurate, but wonderful still the same.

[OchrisO]

I am of the opinion that J. R. R. Tolkien was an amazing storyteller but a horrible writer. I just hate hate hate his style. *shrug*

[Still Servant]

I am of the opinion that J. R. R. Tolkien was an amazing storyteller but a horrible writer. I just hate hate hate his style. *shrug*

Hide, dude. Just hide. :lol:

Sai Joshua



I think the thing we need to keep in focus here is how they brought the world of Tolkien to life for many people who had never read the books. I read the books as a teen and saw the Bakishi Cartoons. To be honest with you, I consider myself a pretty voracious intelligent reader, but I had a few problems reading LOTR. My 2 daughters have watched all of the films with me and my 13 yr old really wanted to start reading the books after she saw the movies. She came to me with this "deer in the headlights" look and asked me " How do you read these?, Am I missing something?" She is still trying, but the movies at least gave her a start in figuring things out. She has rewatched the movies a few times now. And on Peter Jackson, I am not mad at this man for what he did. Remember, Hollywood does not make movies of this size for a select few to watch. They still have to pay the bills at the end of all of this. I think PJ and Weta works gave us some wonderful movies, not entirely accurate, but wonderful still the same.

I concur completly. Whenever you can gain a whole new audience for a piece of work that has been around for so long, it's a good thing.

[OchrisO]

I prefer to yell it out in the middle of crowds of Tolkien fans.

[jayson]

R of G, I know you're not so fond of the movies, so I wouldn't expect you to have purchased the extended editions, but a lot of the added scenes are stuff that was added for fans of the books.

So if you haven't seen the extended editions, you might have a new found appreciation for the films upon watching them.

In case you can't tell, I have a deep need to make everybody I come in contact with love these films. Just ask my family and friends, they find it very annoying. It's a disease.

Aside from seeing the first in the theatre, I actually waited for the second two to come out on DVD so I could see the extended versions. While they do contain more material from the books, ultimately it still led me to the same conclusion - if PJ had this much stuff FROM THE BOOKS to film, why waste our time adding scenes from his own imagination? I agree that the expanded versions get him closer to the books, but I will always have a hard time forgiving PJ for adding his own story to the story.

[jayson]

I think the thing we need to keep in focus here is how they brought the world of Tolkien to life for many people who had never read the books.

Agree completely. Like I said, I am glad the films gave people who hadn't read the books to become familiar with the story. For instance, my wife had never read the books despite my trying to get her to repeatedly. After seeing the first film she was interested. By the time we saw the second two films she had read the books, which she then preferred to the film.

Ultimately, my issue with the films is two-fold. First and foremost, it is the added material. I just find it insulting to Tolkien to add material which never happened in the books and justifying it by saying "well, this makes it a better movie." I've envisioned those books in my head since I started reading them at age 12, and they'd have made a fine movie just as they were. The second issue is that during the time when the movies were out and popular I ran into many people saying how they were better than the books. That is a preposterous statement. An individual may enjoy the films more, but let's not go crazy.

In the end, I am still glad PJ brought the books to the screen. Like I said in an earlier post, aside from the tinkering with the story I thought everything was done very well, and getting to see some of the places from the books come to life was a treat.

[jayson]

I am of the opinion that J. R. R. Tolkien was an amazing storyteller but a horrible writer. I just hate hate hate his style. *shrug*

Bet you thought I'd flame you. Truth be told, I happen to agree to some extent. There is no argument that he is a great storyteller, his stories endure for generations. As far as the writing goes, I'd subdivide that into two areas. Tolkien was a genius as far as writing and re-writing and re-writing until he had the elements of the story precisely the way he wanted them. Where I tend to agree with oChriso is in the actual writing of the final edits. Personally, I like Tolkien's style, but it is (a) a bit dry, and (b) tends to get overly descriptive which can distract from the story at hand.

Ultimately, it's why though I love LotR, if forced to choose between series, the Tower remains at the top of my list. It's King's writing style that takes a hold of you and makes it impossible to put a book down. The difference for me between Tolkien and King is that with Tolkien I feel like I am reading a great story, with King I feel like I am being told a great story. His style, combined with his storytellin make it that much more compelling.

[ManOfWesternesse]

.... my 13 yr old really wanted to start reading the books after she saw the movies. She came to me with this "deer in the headlights" look and asked me " How do you read these?, Am I missing something?" She is still trying, but the movies at least gave her a start in figuring things out. ......


... For instance, my wife had never read the books despite my trying to get her to repeatedly. After seeing the first film she was interested. By the time we saw the second two films she had read the books, which she then preferred to the film...

Similar here - my 10 yr old son has been hooked on the 3 movies for a few years now. This year he read the whole Book & really loved it!

[Letti]

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.

[Rjeso]

My boyfriend is a huge Lord of the Rings fan. I had never read the books until he convinced me to earlier this year. I was deeply impressed. What a wonderful story. I'm a fan of a lot of description in a book, so I ate up a lot of the parts that many don't seem to like.

The abundance of description didn't faze me, either. I love LotR, and have for years. It's one of those series that I read over and over again. I'm also a big fan of the first movie, but not of the sequels.

[ManOfWesternesse]

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.

Well, maybe you could just drop-by the house & I'll read it to you Letti!
It will only take a few weeks! (Unless I read r...e....a......l.......l........y slow - & it might take months? years??:nana: )


*EDIT* Hi there Laura!

[Letti]

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.

Well, maybe you could just drop-by the house & I'll read it to you Letti!
It will only take a few weeks! (Unless I read r...e....a......l.......l........y slow - & it might take months? years??:nana: )

*laughs out loudly*
Or you could read it our for me from the back... it would be harder to understand it but who cares? The longer the better... :lol:

[Rjeso]

Hiya, Brian! :D

[Jean]

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?
You should read (and watch) something else. Your reaction is perfectly natural. If Tolkien isn't your writer (like he isn't mine), you can hardly teach yourself to love him. After all, as OchrisO said, he is poor writing-wise, so why would you have to force yourself to read a hardly readable text if your heart isn't there? (I don't agree that he is a good storyteller, either. He is a good myth collector, that's true, but he can't make his story easy to follow, nor clearly articulate the difference between story-related stuff and mere lore-collecting, and it is a giant flaw.)

[Letti]

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.
If course I won't force myself but maybe this time I will manage.
Anyway it was good as long as I read it but the mountain beat me.

And when I tried it I read it in Hungarian... my English was not good enough to read it in English. I think it will be better in English.
We will see. :)

[Jean]

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.

[Letti]

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.

And who - if not our drear friends and loved ones - can show us hidden treasures? :)

[Telynn]

My daughter finally gave up on reading them and went for the audio books. She loved listening to them.

[Matt]

I was just going to say, I hate to beat a dead horse but listening to them is really cool.

[jayson]

My daughter finally gave up on reading them and went for the audio books. She loved listening to them.

I suffer from chronic migraine headaches, and over the past few years have gotten into audiobooks. I have both the Tower & LotR series on audiobook, and I have really enjoyed listening to them as much as I do reading them on paper. Actually, I find it allows me to use my mind's eye a bit more as I don't have to use my eyes for anything. Letti & Jean, perhaps audio is a way you can get past some of your issues.

[Jean]

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... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sad.gif )

[ManOfWesternesse]

Give it another go Letti, and see how you get on.

Of course Jean is right on one thing - read what you enjoy, and forget about what you don't (no matter who the Author).

And of course Jean is wrong about another thing - Tolkien is the greatest storyteller who ever lived!:innocent:

[Jean]

of course...... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[ManOfWesternesse]

of course...... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

Ha,ha!
Saw you there & thought I'd get my post in before you Jean!
Ah - foiled again!

[Jean]

quick is my middle name! (Jean Q. Bear)

by the way, Brian, you are one of those (very few) people who make me wonder if I shouldn't give it a third try... to at least attempt to see it with your eyes

[ManOfWesternesse]

quick is my middle name! (Jean Q. Bear)

by the way, Brian, you are one of those (very few) people who make me wonder if I shouldn't give it a third try... to at least attempt to see it with your eyes

Actually Jean - I'd say I'm in that 'visual-reader' category you mention + I am most certifiably a fantasy-freak ! I preach the gospel of Lord of the Rings everywhere - but people should read what they love to read. There are so many books - and only the average Three_Score_and_Ten to read them in!

[jayson]

I think it is liked mostly by "visual" readers, who can "see" what they read;

That's me alright. It's like a little movie playing in my head.

[cozener]

Now to me, some of what was wrong with the movie was the character development, or more importantly the friendships. In the books you can't get two closer friends than Aragon and Gandalf. But in the movies they hardly say two words to each other. Even when traveling together they never showed the two of them with their heads together trying to figure out the right path. Even in Moria. And in the book Gandalf relyed heavily on him. Little stuff like that was what I missed. Yes, there was that and quite a few other things that they could have included but didn't. But the movies were already long. Of course, being the fan that I am I could easily tolerate three 5 hour movies that cover everything. One thing that the extended editions did that I did appreciate was to give us a better handle on the Boromir/Faramir/Denethor family dynamic. Faramir was always my favorite character. I related to him. My father was no where near the dick to me that Denethor was to Faramir but I was in a similar situation. I had an older brother who was better at a lot of things than I was (I think thats the way it usually works) and I often felt overshadowed, ignored, and that the talents I did possess were not appreciated. So Faramir's character resonated with me...even moreso now because as with Boromir and Faramir...I ended up being the stronger between the two of us in ways that ended up being more important. I do wish that the movies could have gone more into Faramir's wooing of Eowyn but what they did was also more than adequate. It wasn't pivotal to the story anyway.

The movies were great. I can't imagine them being much better. The scenery, the music, the costumes, the actors, everything. The best thing about the movies was that they were so wonderful that it drew in a crowd that wouldn't normally be interested in that kind of thing. So many people "get it" now that didn't before. Even my dad watched these movies. He watched all three extended editions in one day. Thats huge. This is not a guy who goes out for this kind of story but he was so transfixed by them that he actually devoted a whole day to it.

For me, the movies brought a vitality to the books that wasn't there before...especially in regards to the battles. They were magnificent.

To veer slightly off topic: I've noticed something. It seems like a lot of people that like Tolkien all started reading him at the same time of life. I was 12. 12 seems to be THE age to start with these books. Everytime I've been involved with conversations about when they started reading Tolkien on a forum or in real life it seems that 12 the big number.

[ManOfWesternesse]

To veer slightly off topic: I've noticed something. It seems like a lot of people that like Tolkien all started reading him at the same time of life. I was 12. 12 seems to be THE age to start with these books. Everytime I've been involved with conversations about when they started reading Tolkien on a forum or in real life it seems that 12 the big number.

I'll agree with you that that's quite common.
Me, I was 16 when I first read it, and I've been re-reading regularly it ever since.
My son read it this year (at age 10) - I'll let you know in 30 years if he's a real fan! :lol:

[cozener]

To veer slightly off topic: I've noticed something. It seems like a lot of people that like Tolkien all started reading him at the same time of life. I was 12. 12 seems to be THE age to start with these books. Everytime I've been involved with conversations about when they started reading Tolkien on a forum or in real life it seems that 12 the big number.

I'll agree with you that that's quite common.
Me, I was 16 when I first read it, and I've been re-reading regularly it ever since.
My son read it this year (at age 10) - I'll let you know in 30 years if he's a real fan! :lol:

Ok, well...I expect you back here on December 10th, 2038 with a full report. I'm penciling you in now...

[ManOfWesternesse]

Ok, well...I expect you back here on December 10th, 2038 with a full report. I'm penciling you in now...

At my age, I welcome the possibility I'll be alive to report in then!

[Matt]

:lol:

And that is the truth.

My Granddaughter will be just over 30 :panic:

[CPU]

Good lord, I'll be 72 in '38 (assuming I make it that long! ;))


Oh, and to try and stay on topic, I didn't read the book(s) until I was around 35 I think :lol:. I have to say that although it was enjoyable, it was a lot like work to get through; and I freely admit skimming major portions of it too!

[Brice]

I have been a huge fan [read as "geek"] of LotR since I first read them at age 12 [I am now 37]. For the record, I am a huge Tolkien nerd in that I am also a big fan of the "History of Middle Earth" series that his son Christopher has put out documenting the development of his father's epic tales. That said, I certainly understand how some find Tolkien's descriptive prose to be a bit overwhelming at times and a distraction from the story at hand. Personally, I think this eye for detail of his gives the story that much more depth, but I see where it could hang someone up.

Just a note on Gandalf and Saruman, they [as well as Radagast and the other two unnamed Istari]

Alatar and Pallando?

[jayson]

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.

[Brice]

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.

[jayson]

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.

There is an essay called "On the Istari" which I am pretty sure is in "Unfinished Tales." In this, Tolkien goes into detail about the nature of the Istari and their mission to Middle Earth. Here all 5 are named.

[RUBE]

I would have never read The Dark Tower cycle if I had not read LOTR. The epic scale of the adventure and all of the long-winded mythology fascinated me. After reading it I longed to find something similar and that is how a decided to give The Dark Tower a try. I feel that they are very similar except that Tolkien focused on keeping his continuity straight throughout.

[Still Servant]

I would have never read The Dark Tower cycle if I had not read LOTR. The epic scale of the adventure and all of the long-winded mythology fascinated me. After reading it I longed to find something similar and that is how a decided to give The Dark Tower a try. I feel that they are very similar except that Tolkien focused on keeping his continuity straight throughout.

Same with me, I think about that often.



Even my dad watched these movies. He watched all three extended editions in one day. Thats huge. This is not a guy who goes out for this kind of story but he was so transfixed by them that he actually devoted a whole day to it.

That's my dream. One day it will come true. One day...

[sarah]

Peter Jackson to do the hobbit (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LATU07218122007-1.htm) for real.

was there ever any doubt that new line wouldn't settle so peter could do the movies?

[jayson]

Peter Jackson to do the hobbit (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LATU07218122007-1.htm) for real.

was there ever any doubt that new line wouldn't settle so peter could do the movies?

I know I was hoping they wouldn't settle. Can't wait for Peter and his writing team to make up new material for this one. Perhaps Bilbo had a girlfriend we could focus on rather than the real story.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Peter Jackson to do the hobbit (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LATU07218122007-1.htm) for real.


Glory! Glory!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a God (and he's a Tolkien fan like the rest of us!)

[Matt]

Can't wait to see what he does with Smog (I'm hoping I remember the Dragons name correctly)

I love that story, I may need to listen to it again soon.

[jayson]

Can't wait to see what he does with Smog (I'm hoping I remember the Dragons name correctly)

I love that story, I may need to listen to it again soon.

You'd have it right if this were an audio-only forum, which is my smart-ass way of saying you mispelled it. It was Smaug. If there is anything I am looking foward to it is some large scale scenes of the Battle of Five Armies. Well, that and the riddling. Second best riddling contest ever.:shoot:

[Still Servant]

It's not a coincidence that they settled this. I just read that because of the box office flop of The Golden Compass and other New Line films released this year, that New Line would be eager to settle the dispute with Jackson and get the Hobbit in the works.

Boy, they didn't waste any time.

I'm can officially start looking forward to this.

[ManOfWesternesse]

...If there is anything I am looking foward to it is some large scale scenes of the Battle of Five Armies. Well, that and the riddling. Second best riddling contest ever.:shoot:

Yes, that battle has a lot of potential.
The riddling will be a great scene.
Smaug himself could be interesting - it's a great opportunity for the Special Effects people to create something great!
The gang of 12 Dwarves should be interesting to see.
The 3 trolls!
Beorn!! - I'm looking forward to him.

Plus then, how he splits it into th e2 films.
Does Film 1 go up to the end of the Battle of 5 armies? Then Film 2 = the return home + the 'sequel' bits (White Council / Dol-Guldor / the years between / the finding of Gollum/ etc...) up to the beginning-point of LotR ????
... or does Film1 end somewhere in the middle of 'The Hobbit' book??

[Darkthoughts]

Can't wait to see what he does with Smog (I'm hoping I remember the Dragons name correctly)

I love that story, I may need to listen to it again soon.

You'd have it right if this were an audio-only forum, which is my smart-ass way of saying you mispelled it. It was Smaug.
And may I also be a smart ass and tell you it's pronounced Smorg :P

[sai blaine]

Peter Jackson to do the hobbit (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LATU07218122007-1.htm) for real.


Glory! Glory!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a God (and he's a Tolkien fan like the rest of us!)
At least that proves there is a god... and he hates me :doh:

[ManOfWesternesse]

At least that proves there is a god... and he hates me :doh:
You were unaware of this? :orely:

[sai blaine]

I had a feeling before... :nope: yeah thats right <_< kill the nonbeliever

[jayson]

...If there is anything I am looking foward to it is some large scale scenes of the Battle of Five Armies. Well, that and the riddling. Second best riddling contest ever.:shoot:

Yes, that battle has a lot of potential.
The riddling will be a great scene.
Smaug himself could be interesting - it's a great opportunity for the Special Effects people to create something great!
The gang of 12 Dwarves should be interesting to see.
The 3 trolls!
Beorn!! - I'm looking forward to him.

Plus then, how he splits it into th e2 films.
Does Film 1 go up to the end of the Battle of 5 armies? Then Film 2 = the return home + the 'sequel' bits (White Council / Dol-Guldor / the years between / the finding of Gollum/ etc...) up to the beginning-point of LotR ????
... or does Film1 end somewhere in the middle of 'The Hobbit' book??

Or he could do it correctly and make the Hobbit, one film based entirely on the events of the book.

[jayson]

[/QUOTE]
And may I also be a smart ass and tell you it's pronounced Smorg :P[/QUOTE]

Sure you can. I suppose you have some means of evidence for you pronounciation suggestion?

[OchrisO]

And may I also be a smart ass and tell you it's pronounced Smorg :P
Sure you can. I suppose you have some means of evidence for you pronounciation suggestion?

The Encyclopedia Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp) bases all of its pronunciations on Appendix E of the The Lord of the Rings, with Christopher Tolkien's 'Note on Pronunciation' in The Silmarillion as a secondary source. It says that Smaug is pronounced smowg ('ow' as in 'now'), which is actually different than both of those, I suppose.

To further illustrate:

AU


Pronounced like 'sour', not 'tore'.
Ex.- Bauglir would not be 'Bog-leer', but 'Bowg-leer'.

[Darkthoughts]

Aha! Good call Chris!

R of G, I was actually basing my pronounciation off a BBC radio production of The Hobbit, it was made in the late 70's/early 80's if I recall correctly.

[jayson]

R of G, I was actually basing my pronounciation off a BBC radio production of The Hobbit, it was made in the late 70's/early 80's if I recall correctly.

Very cool. Never heard it, but I do remember the animated film version. I remember liking it when I was a kid and then watching it again in my 20's and thinking "I liked this? What the hell was I thinking? The elves look like the friggin' Grinch!" A radio-play wouldn't have that problem.

[Darkthoughts]

I'll have to see if theres anything about it on the net. I haven't heard it rebroadcast since the 80's though. Bernard Cribbins reads the part of Bilbo, and he is excellent!

Never seen the animated version. I liked the LotR one though...but I haven't watched that in years so it's probably dated and possibly not as good as memory would have me think too ;)

[jayson]

I liked the animated LotR as well [though why they dressed Aragorn like Capt. Caveman still baffles me].

[Darkthoughts]

:lol:

[OchrisO]

Captain CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVEMAN
http://www.climbhotrock.com/hotrockroot/Homepage/captainCaveman.jpg

could beat Aragorn's pansy Ranger ass anyway. He should be happy to be compared to such a great man.

[jayson]

Well of course Chris, one's a superhero, the other is just a dude. Glad you posted the pic because seeing the Capt. again made me realize that the animated Aragorn actually looked a bit more like the father of the Herculoids.

[OchrisO]

Zandor was pretty badass as well.

[jayson]

Zandor was pretty badass as well.

He was, but one-on-one I think Aragorn could take him.

[MonteGss]

I just purchased The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings on Unabridged CD. I am in the process of getting them iPod ready. :D
It's been four years since I have read these books and I look forward to hearing them.

[jayson]

I just purchased The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings on Unabridged CD. I am in the process of getting them iPod ready. :D
It's been four years since I have read these books and I look forward to hearing them.

Enjoy the audio versions Monte. I did. The long descriptive parts which alot of people don't like [though I love them] work beautifully via audiobook. Enjoy your stay in Middle Earth.

[Matt]

I couldn't agree more with the above statement.

[jayson]

I couldn't agree more with the above statement.

It's nice we agree on something today Matt. lol

[Matt]

:D

I don't think I agree with anyone (including the wife) on religion and politics.

We are each an island unto our own.

[Darkthoughts]

Have you (addressing all the Tolkien fans here :) ) read Farmer Giles of Ham and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? A very slim volume (both stories in one paperback) and very enjoyable!

[jayson]

Have you (addressing all the Tolkien fans here :) ) read Farmer Giles of Ham and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? A very slim volume (both stories in one paperback) and very enjoyable!

I have [no surprise there I'm sure]. I enjoy both, particularly the latter. Bombadil is among my fav and the most intriguing of Tolkien's characters.

[William50]

I think that the Lord of the Rings isn't nearly as good as the DT series. Stephen King even said himself that the LOTR was part of his insiration to write the DT series.

[Darkthoughts]

I don't find them comparable, being so intrinsically different :)

RofG - Tom Bombadil is one of my favourite characters too - very Pan/Green Man/Herne The Hunter like.

[jayson]

RofG - Tom Bombadil is one of my favourite characters too - very Pan/Green Man/Herne The Hunter like.

Very much so. What I like most about Tom is that Tolkien never specified precisely what Tom is. I like the ambiguity not only in leaving it up to the reader, but also in the fact that no characters who encounter him really know either exactly who or what he is.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Yeah, that's exactly what was so great & so memorable about Bombadil.
You come away with an image, after listening to Gandalf and Elrond, that Tom is an enigma even to them (but of course, also one who would be totally heedless of the long-term dangers of the Ring, or of anything).
He was a nice 'aside' on the tale - but rightly left as just that by JRRT.

[jayson]

You come away with an image, after listening to Gandalf and Elrond, that Tom is an enigma even to them

It's particularly the former that makes it so interesting. Since we do know who/what Gandalf [aka Olorin] is, it makes it that much more intriguing that someone who has been around SO long doesn't know for sure what Tom is really all about. He's just "eldest," and that's that.

[Spencer]

:doh: Olorin what now? My head is spinning. :lol:

[ManOfWesternesse]

:doh: Olorin what now? My head is spinning. :lol:

From Gandalf's explaination of his past " many names I have had among Elves and Dwarfs and Men.......Olorin I was in the West, when the world was young...." (sic)

[Spencer]

Thank you Brian. I REALLY need to reread the books sometime soon. :lol:

[To The Dark Tower Came]

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.

My favorite aspects of the Tolkien books is Gandalf and the White Council. I have carried on debates (largely in newsgroups) about Gandalf and his wizarding ways. I usually talk about Gandalf as a character with a foreknowledge of the War of the Ring, and everything leading to it. As the Unfinished tales says, he was worried about the lack of arms in the North, and encouraged Thorin and his band to re-take Erebor and their "rightful kingdom".

I have also contended he knew in advance he would perish in Middle-Earth, though he might not have know the exact where and when until he entered Moria. Then he arose much greater than before and no longer had to wear the mantle of a mere wizard.

As far as the movies go, I liked parts and disliked parts. The one scene I would have liked to have seen was the face-off between Gandalf and the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith. That scene seemed like something out of a Gunslinger showdown, and though it never came to an actual throw down, there was an underlying battle of power and will there.

[obscurejude]

I, too feel your disgust R of G.

[jayson]

Thanks Jude.

BTW all, today is January 3rd and is the birthdate of JRR Tolkien, born on this date in 1892.

[jayson]

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.

My favorite aspects of the Tolkien books is Gandalf and the White Council. I have carried on debates (largely in newsgroups) about Gandalf and his wizarding ways. I usually talk about Gandalf as a character with a foreknowledge of the War of the Ring, and everything leading to it. As the Unfinished tales says, he was worried about the lack of arms in the North, and encouraged Thorin and his band to re-take Erebor and their "rightful kingdom".

I have also contended he knew in advance he would perish in Middle-Earth, though he might not have know the exact where and when until he entered Moria. Then he arose much greater than before and no longer had to wear the mantle of a mere wizard.

As far as the movies go, I liked parts and disliked parts. The one scene I would have liked to have seen was the face-off between Gandalf and the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith. That scene seemed like something out of a Gunslinger showdown, and though it never came to an actual throw down, there was an underlying battle of power and will there.

Gandalf is certainly among the most intriguing characters to me, along with Galadriel, and to a lesser extent Elrond. I am a Silmarillion geek and big fan of the stories of the First and Second Ages of Middle Earth, so the characters we meet in LotR who have been around since then are the ones who most captivate me. I agree with your theory that Gandalf has some pre-knowledge of the War of the Ring. Clearly his actions between the time of the White Council and Bilbo's adventure show that he knew something big was a-coming. For that matter, if something wasn't brewing, woudl the Istari have ever been sent from Valinor to Middle Earth? I know they weren't given mission briefs or anything, but a maia with some good thinking skills like Olorin could surely look at the situation in Middle Earth and make some clever deductions.

[To The Dark Tower Came]

Gandalf is certainly among the most intriguing characters to me, along with Galadriel, and to a lesser extent Elrond. I am a Silmarillion geek and big fan of the stories of the First and Second Ages of Middle Earth, so the characters we meet in LotR who have been around since then are the ones who most captivate me. I agree with your theory that Gandalf has some pre-knowledge of the War of the Ring. Clearly his actions between the time of the White Council and Bilbo's adventure show that he knew something big was a-coming. For that matter, if something wasn't brewing, woudl the Istari have ever been sent from Valinor to Middle Earth? I know they weren't given mission briefs or anything, but a maia with some good thinking skills like Olorin could surely look at the situation in Middle Earth and make some clever deductions.



One of the bad things about the movies and the book trilogy as far as it goes is their lack of portrayal of figures like Galadriel. I suppose if you don't read Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, it's hard to see what a tragic character she is. Being lead to leave Valinor and therefore falling under the ban of her line, she is young and prideful and even when the rebellious elves are given the chance to return she refuses and remains exiled. Then she's given a ring of power and forced into hiding for millennia. One of the oldest in Middle Earth but you have to goto the other sources to really see the tragedy of her life.

I personally think that the Istari in general failed at their mission. While great powers compared to Men and most elves they were almost too human for their own good. Each except Gandalf falls under some kind of obsessive behavior (and some say even Gandalf too, until almost too late). Saruman with power of the rings and his own rise to greatness, Radagast seemed just plain tired of it all and became obsessed with the plants and animals of Middle Earth.

The only other two, the "Blue Wizards", supposedly succeeded in the East, but from the way the battle is almost lost at Minas Tirith and the overwhelming army Sauron had, I'd say their missions were not a complete success.

[jayson]

I agree with you on all counts, particularly with respect to Galadriel. One who has only read the trilogy doesn't get to see her for who she is and understand the things that she has seen.

[jayson]

Here's one for you all, my most "controversial" LotR question [at least the one that usually makes people think I'm a bit off]...

Frodo, success or failure? Obviously I choose the latter or this thread wouldn't be here, but allow me to explain. Frodo was one strong and brave little hobbit who made it through a tremendous amount of opposition to get to Mt. Doom. Yet, when the time came to complete his mission, Frodo succumbed to the power of the Ring and chose to claim it as his own. There but for the clumsiness of Smeagol went all of Middle Earth. Let us hypothesize for a moment that Smeagol didn't manage to get to Mt. Doom at the same time as Sam & Frodo. What would have happened? Sauron became aware of Frodo and the Ring when he put it on and surely Sam would never have pushed Frodo into the cracks of doom. What do you think?

[William50]

I think that because Frodo dies in the end, it was a failure.

[jayson]

I think that because Frodo dies in the end, it was a failure.

I could be wrong but I don't think the spoiler tags are needed in this thread.

Dies in the end of what? Also, why would Frodo be immortal?

[William50]

Sorry about the spoiler tags. Frodo dies in the end of the movies when he is sent off with Bilbo, if that is the guy's name, in a ship. I assume that ship is taking them to their deaths.

[TerribleT]

Here's one for you all, my most "controversial" LotR question [at least the one that usually makes people think I'm a bit off]...


I've pretty much thought you were a little off for quite a while now. The fact that we agree some things, isn't helping your cause. :rofl:

Do we, in fact, know that he succumbed to the power of the ring, or was it maybe just a momentary lapse?

[William50]

I think that it was just a momentary lapse.

[jayson]

Sorry about the spoiler tags. Frodo dies in the end of the movies when he is sent off with Bilbo, if that is the guy's name, in a ship. I assume that ship is taking them to their deaths.

According to Tolkien, you assume incorrectly. The ship is taking them to Tol Eressea aka "The Lonely Isle" [which is where Elves go to "retire" since they don't actually die] and/or Valinor [the next island over where the deities live along with elves who never came to Middle Earth back in the day, well back to Middle Earth really, but that's another matter].

It's not clear from the books, and certainly not the movies, but Tolkien's notes [mostly published by his son Christopher in several volumes afterwards] show that Bilbo and Frodo [and assumedly Gimli as well] don't stay there forever as the elves do. They are brought there to be healed of what the Ring did to them, and it's to be assumed they eventually went back to Middle Earth where they died natural deaths. He was pretty clear that "The Undying Lands" [the two islands] were not for mortals and that this was a great, but temporary, reward for the two hobbits because of their large roles in saving Middle Earth.

All that said, I can easily understand your confusion. When I first read it when I was 12 I wasn't altogether sure what happened to them either. Reading The Silmarillion helped and the History of Middle Earth series by Christopher Tolkien filled in the rest of the holes.

So now that you know that, do you still think he failed?

[jayson]

Do we, in fact, know that he succumbed to the power of the ring, or was it maybe just a momentary lapse?

Well, he does say aloud that he chooses not to destroy it and claims it as his own. With the Ring on his finger I don't see him being able to change his mind, and given the proximity to Sauron, a few more moments was all it would have taken for things to go hideously wrong.

[William50]

No.:)

[ManOfWesternesse]

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. :)

[Telynn]

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.

[jayson]

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 agree with you Brian to the extent that the books alone leave it up to the reader what happened to them after the ship sailed. However, in the History of Middle Earth books [comprised of all of his notes/drafts] he was pretty clear that they were going there to be healed and would eventually have to come back to Middle Earth to die [I don't think they can physically die in The Undying Lands, I don't think anyone can]. Still, as the books stand, it's open to interpretation and yours is as good as any.

[jayson]

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.

[ManOfWesternesse]

...However, in the History of Middle Earth books .... he was pretty clear that they were going there to be healed and would eventually have to come back to Middle Earth to die ......


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.
Ah, it's always good to learn something new!

[jayson]

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.

[Dud-a-chum?]

I was horribly confused in many places about who was who and what was what.

Me too. I had no clue where folks were or if we were going in chronological order, or jumping back and forth in time, especially in The Two Towers book. Also, calling two main characters Sauron and Saruman led to many near anneurysms. :lol:
This is one of the reasons why I dislike the book. If the storyline is hard to follow, it means it is poorly written. He was so engrossed in mythology that he didn't bother to articulate the story, or to make the characters viable, or to write anything resembling enjoyable dialog. It may be all good as a compendium of myths, but only (at best) mediocre as prose.

This may have been already touched upon, but I'm lazy, so . . .

I think this is part of the charm of the story. Think about it this way: Tolkein wrote alot of things in the style of actual history records. He wanted the LOTR books to feel alot like actual recorded history that has been around for so long has become myth (or at least that is how I always looked at it). That in mind, I can see huge similarities between this story and many history books, including the Bible, and whether or not you consider that history or myth, it does have very similar-feeling moments of confusion and seeming contradictrion. To me, that makes it feel all the more real, because if you are looking at records of sorts, everything won't be explained, and it will seem chopped up and confusing. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that this is a great style in which to write a fantasy novel, but it is a big reason why alot of people love the LOTR story; because Tolkein made it feel so real, as if we were actually looking at actual history books of a time before history.

Again, that is merely my take on it, and I'm not even sure if I described it all that well, but yeah . . . that's my reasoning for liking the LOTR.

[jayson]

This may have been already touched upon, but I'm lazy, so . . .

I think this is part of the charm of the story. Think about it this way: Tolkein wrote alot of things in the style of actual history records. He wanted the LOTR books to feel alot like actual recorded history that has been around for so long has become myth (or at least that is how I always looked at it). ...

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that this is a great style in which to write a fantasy novel, but it is a big reason why alot of people love the LOTR story; because Tolkein made it feel so real, as if we were actually looking at actual history books of a time before history.

Again, that is merely my take on it, and I'm not even sure if I described it all that well, but yeah . . . that's my reasoning for liking the LOTR.

I think you describe it perfectly. The whole trilogy is supposed to read as the written recollections of the historical events of the series, not as a straight narrative. It may make it harder to follow or to "get into" for some, but for me it's the appeal.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Yes, well expressed Dud-a-chum.
It's even an aspect that they tried to be true to in the films, with Bilbo writing the Red Book at the beginning of Fellowship & then Frodo handing the Book on to Sam to be finished after he has resolved to go West.

[ATG]

Sorry about the spoiler tags. Frodo dies in the end of the movies when he is sent off with Bilbo, if that is the guy's name, in a ship. I assume that ship is taking them to their deaths.

According to Tolkien, you assume incorrectly. The ship is taking them to Tol Eressea aka "The Lonely Isle" [which is where Elves go to "retire" since they don't actually die] and/or Valinor [the next island over where the deities live along with elves who never came to Middle Earth back in the day, well back to Middle Earth really, but that's another matter].

It's not clear from the books, and certainly not the movies, but Tolkien's notes [mostly published by his son Christopher in several volumes afterwards] show that Bilbo and Frodo [and assumedly Gimli as well] don't stay there forever as the elves do. They are brought there to be healed of what the Ring did to them, and it's to be assumed they eventually went back to Middle Earth where they died natural deaths. He was pretty clear that "The Undying Lands" [the two islands] were not for mortals and that this was a great, but temporary, reward for the two hobbits because of their large roles in saving Middle Earth.

All that said, I can easily understand your confusion. When I first read it when I was 12 I wasn't altogether sure what happened to them either. Reading The Silmarillion helped and the History of Middle Earth series by Christopher Tolkien filled in the rest of the holes.

So now that you know that, do you still think he failed?

+1

I think that if not for Smeagol, Frodo may have beome the next Sauron, so in that aspect it was a failure, but on the other hand, getting to The Crack of Doom at all was a success.

I always assumed that Frodo and Bilbo both lived extraordinary long lives in the Grey Havens, just because of contact with the Ring, but never thought beyond that.

[Jean]

The whole trilogy is supposed to read as the written recollections of the historical events of the series, not as a straight narrative. It may make it harder to follow or to "get into" for some, but for me it's the appeal.
I think I can agree with that. While - maybe - not making the book outright "bad" reading it would still make it a very specific reading, appealing either to Fantasy aficionados or to connoisseurs who delight in formal exquisiteness; it's just that I am neither. I only need a story well written, characters well developed and dialogs entertaining and plausible... and if a books misses any I am disappointed... and if it misses the three, I am frustrated.

<--- conservative, traditional reader

[jayson]

I think that if not for Smeagol, Frodo may have beome the next Sauron, so in that aspect it was a failure, but on the other hand, getting to The Crack of Doom at all was a success.

Worse than become the next Sauron, I think he'd have been slaughtered by the actual Sauron who became aware of him the second he put that ring on. The distance was so small that Sauron could have been to Mt. Doom in overwhelming force in moments and would then have his Ring back. After that, bye bye Middle Earth.



I always assumed that Frodo and Bilbo both lived extraordinary long lives in the Grey Havens, just because of contact with the Ring, but never thought beyond that.

The long lives would be after they sailed from the Grey Havens for the Undying Lands.

[cozener]

Yes...Frodo himself failed in that his will failed at the end. But he did, with the help of Sam and Smeagol, get the Ring to Mt. Doom. If he did not accomplish at least that much we'd have to assume that the quest would have failed as I do not know that Sam was quite strong enough to carry the Ring for extended time. I could be underestimating him though (he was a plucky little bastard) but I suppose thats neither here nor there. What if Gandalf had decided to have an eagle just drop the ring into Mt. Doom? Not much drama there. Just like if Frodo's will had not ultimately been defeated by the Ring the story wouldn't have been quite as interesting. Frodo's failure, I thought, was an integral part to the end of the story and illustrated just how deeply the evil of the Ring had seeped into him. This made his desire to go to the Undying Lands more understandable. His failure brought home for us the fact that, unlike the other hobbits, merely returning to the Shire would not be enough for Frodo. He had been so tainted that only going to a kind of heaven, a beautiful, magical place were there is no evil was the only way that his soul could be healed and he could find peace.

And I always figured that it was a kind of heaven that they went too...Tolkien's description of Frodo seeing “the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass” at the end leads me to believe this. And later, just like in every other depiction of heaven, they were eventually reunited with all of their friends and loved ones where they all live forever in a far, green country with a swift sunrise...and lots of mushrooms.

[ATG]

I loved it. The movies were timeless. I've read the series a few times.

[ManOfWesternesse]

....What if Gandalf had decided to have an eagle just drop the ring into Mt. Doom? Not much drama there....

I've seen this argument used before, and sometimes I agree & sometimes disagree :lol:
BUT - one big question.
Should we assume that the Eagle would be unaffected by the Ring, any more than a Man, or Elf, or Hobbit, or whatever? Why would the Ring not corrupt the Eagle?

[jayson]

Should we assume that the Eagle would be unaffected by the Ring, any more than a Man, or Elf, or Hobbit, or whatever? Why would the Ring not corrupt the Eagle?

Excellent point Brian. There is no reason to assume the Ring would not influence the eagle any less than it affects every other living creature it comes in contact with. Now, an eagle might be among the least tempted creatures given their long ties to Manwe, but any temptation at all... There's also the little matter of the mission needing to be covert. Eagles aren't invisible. Sauron's forces would have seen it coming and flying Nazgul would have been sent to intercept it long before it reached Orodruin.

[Matt]

I always assumed the ring was given to Frodo because Hobbits had a natural kind of strength to withstand it. That may have been a dream though.

The phrase "crack of doom" always reminds me of this girl in high school ><

[jayson]

I always assumed the ring was given to Frodo because Hobbits had a natural kind of strength to withstand it. That may have been a dream though.

Nice dream, but not the case. It was given to him bc he was Bilbo's heir. Ultimately, nobody had the strength to withstand it. Gandalf was afraid to even touch it, and you saw Galadriel's reaction when Frodo tried to give it to her. Frodo by default. Luckily he withstood its power long enough to get it to Mt. Doom where Smeagol's clumsiness took care of it.

[Matt]

Hmmmm...I understood that he was Bilbo's heir but I also thought there was something about Hobbits that made them special that way...:orely:

[Jean]

I remember (because it was one of the few things that touched me) that Frodo was chosen by all them races to carry the ring because hobbits were something nobody ever took into consideration, something almost nonexistent in the big scheme of things, and thus they couldn't be expected to, for example, have any real claims to the throne, the ultimate power etc. They were just little funny creatures nobody took seriously.

[Matt]

That may have been it, thank you Jean

[jayson]

they are strong-willed, but clearly not enough to withstand the Ring. It definitely held sway over Bilbo, and in the end it overtook Frodo. Smeagol even was, in some respects a hobbit of a kind. He was of the "fisher folk of the Ethir," who were a small-statured people who are among the early predecessors of hobbits. When it comes down to it, nobody is immune to its power. Sauron was significantly greater in power than anybody in Middle Earth. Of all the races it's mentioned that the rings of power had the least power over dwarves, but the rings did make them greedy which led to evil deeds. Just think of the Ring like Black 13, nobody masters it but its master.

[jayson]

I remember (because it was one of the few things that touched me) that Frodo was chosen by all them races to carry the ring because hobbits were something nobody ever took into consideration, something almost nonexistent in the big scheme of things, and thus they couldn't be expected to, for example, have any real claims to the throne, the ultimate power etc. They were just little funny creatures nobody took seriously.

That was among their reasons for sure. There's a lot to be said for how bravely Frodo acted in getting the Ring to Rivendell to begin with, and then his volunteering to be the one to carry it. Ultimately it came down to the fact that either nobody else of the Fellowship trusted themselves with it [Aragorn or Gandalf specifically], or they were not to be trusted with it [Boromir]. Hobbits were untested where men had fallen to Sauron's deceits before, so hobbits were a good choice, but still held no special powers to prevent the Ring from doing its thing.

[Matt]

Well now, I guess it depends on how you look at it. I'm not saying that Hobbits had any special power where the ring is concerned. But if The Ring viewed Hobbits as a "lower form" of creature, it may not have tried as hard with them.

Meaning, Hobbits had an advantage where it was concerned. I'm not sure but I suppose it could be viewed that way.

I remember it basically jumped at the chance to ride with Gandolf.

[jayson]

Well now, I guess it depends on how you look at it. I'm not saying that Hobbits had any special power where the ring is concerned. But if The Ring viewed Hobbits as a "lower form" of creature, it may not have tried as hard with them.

Meaning, Hobbits had an advantage where it was concerned. I'm not sure but I suppose it could be viewed that way.

I remember it basically jumped at the chance to ride with Gandolf.

The Ring doesn't view creatures differently by kind. It may have different ways of affecting them based on their kind, but the Ring only knows one purpose, to return to the hand of Sauron. All others it views as a way to get back to where it belongs. What I'm saying is, its power is its power. It doesn't work in degrees based on how races are perceived. When its awake, it jumps at the chance to get into anyone's hands. It knows that while it is in use, Sauron can find it, and it wants to get back to him.

[Matt]

Okay, I totally understand that. I just meant that perhaps the Ring didn't jump at a hobbit as much. I mean, Bilbo carried it for years.

I get the rings purpose but there has to be an argument that says Frodo was uniquely qualified to carry it, otherwise it would have just taken him like it did so many others.

I don't know why it was but it seems like it must have been.

[jayson]

I get the rings purpose but there has to be an argument that says Frodo was uniquely qualified to carry it, otherwise it would have just taken him like it did so many others.

You can make that argument if you choose, I just think it's without evidence. Bilbo was definitely falling under the sway of the Ring and had an extremely difficult time in letting it go. As for Frodo, remember, as I pointed out, Frodo DID succumb to the power of it. Were it not for Smeagol's last second appearance, all would likely have been lost. I think Frodo was seen [correctly] as the best possible choice for the mission, but I don;t think he should be seen as "destined" to do it.

[Matt]

Yes that is true, but the rate of decent is much slower no? Gandolf couldn't even touch the thing.

I'm cool with it, I just think there is much more to it than..."It gets everyone"

[jayson]

Yes that is true, but the rate of decent is much slower no? Gandolf couldn't even touch the thing.


Not couldn't, wouldn't. Remember, unlike Frodo or Bilbo or Smeagol, he knew exactly what it was. Not only did he know it's history, he was alive for all of it, and knew full well how evil and how powerful Sauron was. Gandalf was smart enough not to touch it at all. Look at how it lured someone as powerful as Saruman who never even set his eyes on the thing. From the time of the first White Council meetings [prior to Bilbo's finding the Ring] Saruman had already made up his mind to try to find it and claim it as his own. Tolkien states that even one as powerful as him could never master the Ring and would ultimately become another Sauron [I re-read the "On the Rings of Power and the Third Age" part of the Silmarillion in light of this conversation]. Galadriel as well was smart enough to know not to even touch it. Overall, it goes to the power of the individual will to resist it. Bilbo and Frodo proved strong.

[Matt]

So we can agree on that last line. I suppose why they were so strong is up for debate.

[Philzilla]

You can make that argument if you choose, I just think it's without evidence. Bilbo was definitely falling under the sway of the Ring and had an extremely difficult time in letting it go. As for Frodo, remember, as I pointed out, Frodo DID succumb to the power of it. Were it not for Smeagol's last second appearance, all would likely have been lost. I think Frodo was seen [correctly] as the best possible choice for the mission, but I don;t think he should be seen as "destined" to do it.

Not only was he uniquely qualified, there is textual and authorial evidence that he was destined to take the ring. It's part of Tolkien's Catholic predestination beliefs, which is reflected by Gandalf and Elrond in the Fellowship of the Ring

Frodo say something to the effect
"I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

Then Gandalf tells Frodo that Bilbo acquired the ring because "there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought."

Very Encouraging, through Frodo's labors the ring was destroyed

The same goes for Gollum. It wasn't a coincidence. Gollum had his role in the destruction of the ring as well, that was "pre-ordained" if you will.

"It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.";

"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.";

Even Elrond alludes to this;

"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."

Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by the sudden keenness of the glance. "If I understand aright all that I have heard," he said, "I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will. This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great. Who of all the Wise could have foreseen it? Or, if they are wise, why should they expect to know it, until the hour has struck?"

Oh well that's my take anyway

[Telynn]

I think that it was mentioned that hobbits seem to have a bit of protection from the ring, Gandalf mentions something about how it didn't affect Bilbo as badly as he thought it would, and look at how long Gollum had it. But above all else (and this might be their protection) is that they aren't powerful. It seemed the more powerful you were the more dangerous the ring was. That was why Gandalf wouldn't touch it. That was why Frodo offering it to Galadrial was such a "trial" in her mind. Isulder (I think that is spelled wrong) had it for what... days? weeks? and it affected him right off. But little Bilbo Baggins manages to leave the ring behind and walk away from it. Even though that moment comes at the beginning of the story and doesn't seem very impressive at the time, in reality it was showing a hobbit doing something no one else would have the strength to do.

[Matt]

I totally agree, great points Telynn.

The fact that Bilbo could let it go at all is huge.

[Darkthoughts]

I agree with that too. It may not be what you come to understand if you read into the lore as much as you do for example RofG, but its definately the impression you get if you only read The Hobbit/LotR I'd say :)


Matt, that comment about the "Crack of Doom" made me laugh out loud for real :rofl:

[cozener]

....What if Gandalf had decided to have an eagle just drop the ring into Mt. Doom? Not much drama there....

I've seen this argument used before, and sometimes I agree & sometimes disagree :lol:
BUT - one big question.
Should we assume that the Eagle would be unaffected by the Ring, any more than a Man, or Elf, or Hobbit, or whatever? Why would the Ring not corrupt the Eagle?
Oh fine! Well what about if they had an eagle carry Frodo while he was carrying the ring and he could drop it in. Ha! Take that! :)

[ManOfWesternesse]

Okay, I totally understand that. I just meant that perhaps the Ring didn't jump at a hobbit as much. I mean, Bilbo carried it for years......
One of the reasons Bilbo carried it so long though (and Gollum for much,much longer before him) was that the Ring was quiescent for almost all of that time, and that because its true master was still 'gone' (for want of a better word). It was only after Sauron started to re-establish himself, and especially after he fled Dol Guldor and returned to Mordor, that the Ring re-awakened fully and began to seek irs master's hand again.
Remember that the whole time Frodo carried it, from before he left the Shire all the way to Mordor - the Ring was striving all the time to reach Sauron. Which puts Frodo's achievemment into perspective.




You can make that argument if you choose, I just think it's without evidence. Bilbo was definitely falling under the sway of the Ring and had an extremely difficult time in letting it go. As for Frodo, remember, as I pointed out, Frodo DID succumb to the power of it. Were it not for Smeagol's last second appearance, all would likely have been lost. I think Frodo was seen [correctly] as the best possible choice for the mission, but I don;t think he should be seen as "destined" to do it.

Not only was he uniquely qualified, there is textual and authorial evidence that he was destined to take the ring. It's part of Tolkien's Catholic predestination beliefs, which is reflected by Gandalf and Elrond in the Fellowship of the Ring

Frodo say something to the effect
"I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

Then Gandalf tells Frodo that Bilbo acquired the ring because "there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought."

Very Encouraging, through Frodo's labors the ring was destroyed

The same goes for Gollum. It wasn't a coincidence. Gollum had his role in the destruction of the ring as well, that was "pre-ordained" if you will.

"It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.";

"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.";

Even Elrond alludes to this;

"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."

Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by the sudden keenness of the glance. "If I understand aright all that I have heard," he said, "I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will. This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great. Who of all the Wise could have foreseen it? Or, if they are wise, why should they expect to know it, until the hour has struck?"

Oh well that's my take anyway
Excellent first post Philzilla. Yes, that aspect of there being fate (Ka) at work in the choice of Frodo to carry the Ring is important I think. Also- the simple fact that, scared witless though he was, he volunteered to carry it from Rivendell!






....What if Gandalf had decided to have an eagle just drop the ring into Mt. Doom? Not much drama there....

I've seen this argument used before, and sometimes I agree & sometimes disagree :lol:
BUT - one big question.
Should we assume that the Eagle would be unaffected by the Ring, any more than a Man, or Elf, or Hobbit, or whatever? Why would the Ring not corrupt the Eagle?
Oh fine! Well what about if they had an eagle carry Frodo while he was carrying the ring and he could drop it in. Ha! Take that! :)
Now we're getting places - this theory is developing potential! :lol:

[Matt]

One of the reasons Bilbo carried it so long though (and Gollum for much,much longer before him) was that the Ring was quiescent for almost all of that time, and that because its true master was still 'gone' (for want of a better word). It was only after Sauron started to re-establish himself, and especially after he fled Dol Guldor and returned to Mordor, that the Ring re-awakened fully and began to seek irs master's hand again.
Remember that the whole time Frodo carried it, from before he left the Shire all the way to Mordor - the Ring was striving all the time to reach Sauron. Which puts Frodo's achievemment into perspective.

That is a very good point and something I had not thought of. Thank you Brian.

It makes perfect sense that it was basically "asleep" for a time.

[jayson]

This has become a very interesting discussion and everyone is making great points. I am actually busy for a change at work, but hope to have some time later to weigh in on all of this. Until then I am enjoying everybody else's posts.

[Matt]

Can't wait!

I couldn't agree more, I've learned more about The Lord of the Rings in this thread than anywhere else.

[Darkthoughts]

Same here - that was a great post Brian!

[ManOfWesternesse]

Same here - that was a great post Brian!

Yeah? Wait till R_of_G gets time to examine it properly & tear it apart! :lol: [Joke - but that guy knows his Tolkien inside-out].

Seriously though - there's been some great posting in here. Look up there at Philzilla's first post on dt.COM, look at a lot of others. Keep it up people - this is the kind of thing that continues to make this an interesting place.

[jayson]

Yeah? Wait till R_of_G gets time to examine it properly & tear it apart! :lol: [Joke - but that guy knows his Tolkien inside-out].

Funny Brian, but there is nothing to tear apart. I think your post
was right on target.

[QUOTE=ManOfWesternesse;92933]
One of the reasons Bilbo carried it so long though (and Gollum for much,much longer before him) was that the Ring was quiescent for almost all of that time, and that because its true master was still 'gone' (for want of a better word). It was only after Sauron started to re-establish himself, and especially after he fled Dol Guldor and returned to Mordor, that the Ring re-awakened fully and began to seek irs master's hand again.
Remember that the whole time Frodo carried it, from before he left the Shire all the way to Mordor - the Ring was striving all the time to reach Sauron. Which puts Frodo's achievemment into perspective.


I think that it was mentioned that hobbits seem to have a bit of protection from the ring, Gandalf mentions something about how it didn't affect Bilbo as badly as he thought it would, and look at how long Gollum had it.

Both of you make valid points, and I think each of those factors in on the difference between Bilbo and Smeagol. I also think a good deal could be said for the way in which Bilbo used the Ring, contrasted with Smeagol. Bilbo didn't use the Ring for his own benefit at the expense of others . He used it sparingly and never for a purpose that could be deemed "evil." This is crucial. If I may quote Christopher Tolkien [here discussing the drafts of Fellowship of the Ring and how his father's idea of the Ruling Ring developed]...

The element of moral will required in one possesed of a Ring to resist its power is strongly asserted. This is seen in Gandalf's advice to Bilbo in the original draft : 'don't use it for harm, or finding out other people's secrets, and of course not for theft or for worse things. [I]Because it may get the better of you."

-Christiopher Tolkien "The Return of the Shadow: The History of the Lord of the Rings Part 1"

Additionally, this can be seen in Gandalf's reaction to Frodo's famous "it's a shame Bilbo didn't kill Gollum" comment. Gandalf tells him "Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so." Essentially, the Ring ensared Smeagol more than Bilbo not only because Smeagol had it for longer, but because Smeagol (a) attained the Ring by murdering his cousin, and (b) used the Ring for selfish and "evil" ends.


Not only was he uniquely qualified, there is textual and authorial evidence that he was destined to take the ring. It's part of Tolkien's Catholic predestination beliefs, which is reflected by Gandalf and Elrond in the Fellowship of the Ring

...

Oh well that's my take anyway

And I agree with Brian, it's a very well-said take for a first post in this thread, and I'm glad you joined the discussion. I see the pre-destination thing like this...

Firstly, because of The Silmarillion there is the necessary concession that all events in Tolkien's created universe are possibly pre-destined. The creation of the World is described, and there is a primary creative force, Eru Iluvatar. Now, we could leave it there and just chalk up everything to pre-destination, or doom, or ka or whatever you want to call it, but I think that cheapens the events within. If all can just be written off to pre-destination, where is the heroism in the deeds done? Did they act heroically or just do what their destinies made them do?

What I'm saying is that I believe Tolkien allowed for the concept of free will. I think the above quote from Christopher Tolkien goes to this. Moreso, if everything is pre-determined, there are a lot of "why's" that would come to mind.

In short, if there is no free will, and everyone just does what they are destined to do, why would a creator create a world...

... in which Melkor could rise to power and effect massive evil for generations

... in which Sauron could arise to replace Melkor and continue the reign of terror

... in which something like the One Ring could be created

...etc.

If the whole point is to let it play out until the destined hero comes along to stop it, it makes it all a bit pointless. There are tales throughout the ages of Middle Earth about characters who stood in the face of overwhelming evil, and they are mostly tragic stories, but they show me the power of free will. The Enemy, be it Melkor or Sauron, seeks to dominate the wills of all and order the world to their bidding. The resistance seeks to determine its own destiny.

I'll concede that certain characters in the books believe in pre-destination themselves as evident from the passages you quoted, but neither Elrond nor Gandalf or anybody else present in the tales know these things to be true. Back to The Silmarillion, we are told time and time again that while much is known by the Valar [the deities present in the physical world] they do not know much of the mind of Iluvatar and the way in which the history he created will play itself out. {Brian, think of the emmissaries of Manwe who pleaded with the Numenoreans not to break the westward ban}.

What it comes down to is that there may very well be pre-destination at work, but nobody present in the books knows what that pre-destination is. They may make guesses at it, and in the case of Aragorn there may be prophecy, but even prophecy does not see all. Even Manwe, most powerful of the Valar and closest in mind to Iluvatar does not know what is to come [a fact Sauron used to facilitate the destruction of Westernesse].

Anyway, that was more than enough to read from me in one post. It's hard for me to stop once I start on this stuff. I look forward to continuing this discussion with all of you as you all have interesting insights on these books.

[John_and_Yoko]

One question, though....

I don't know if I'm remembering the book right, but...didn't Bilbo kill the spiders while he was wearing the ring in Mirkwood? In which case, didn't he use the ring to harm others?

Or does that not count because spiders are irredeemable?

[jayson]

One question, though....

I don't know if I'm remembering the book right, but...didn't Bilbo kill the spiders while he was wearing the ring in Mirkwood? In which case, didn't he use the ring to harm others?

Or does that not count because spiders are irredeemable?

good point J&Y....i see like this, bilbo used the Ring to kill the spiders to protect his friends. had he just randomly attacked the spiders it'd be different i suppose. that would be a more "evil" act whereas defense of others would not be. it goes to motivation.

[MonteGss]

I recently finished listening to the audios of The Hobbit and The Fellowship and am now on to Two Towers. They are read by Rob Inglis and are quite good. I've read the series 2 or 3 times but I must say that listening to it is fantastic! I got the idea of doing this from Eddie in The Dark Tower but I couldn't find a version by the narrator he mentions.
:cool:

[Ikilledthecrimsonking]

ive never read or watched the movies should I, i hear good and bad things about the LotR

[Jean]

Although I am by no means a LotR fan, I think that you should, if for no other reason than it being necessary part of the contemporary cultural context.

[MonteGss]

Agreed. Read it first. The movies are a different sort of entertainment, obviously. You do yourself a disservice if you watch the movies before reading them, imo. :)

[John_and_Yoko]

I must disagree.

While I personally LOVE The Lord of the Rings, it's not everyone's cup of tea (and it's SO long!), so I doubt it's "necessary" to read it just because it's part of the contemporary cultural context.

If you want to read the book or see the movies, I won't stop you, and I'll cheer you on, but you should do it because you're interested, not because someone else tells you to.

Also, I saw the movies BEFORE I read the book, and I think that's all to the good, at least in my case. I don't hold with the idea of being a "purist" with respect to film adaptations of books--literature and cinema are two different media, and what works in one may not in the other. A lot of the time, a "great" adaptation of a great book is NOT faithful to it. (The Shining, anyone?)

However, I tend to think in purist terms anyway--if I've read a book, I'll mentally be comparing the movie to it, which can ruin the experience of the movie for me instead of letting me enjoy the movie for what it is.

Now, maybe that's not true in your case, but I'm just saying that's the way it is for me.

[MonteGss]

I'm wondering what the hard core LotR fans opinion of this is:
I just finished my reread (audio) of the series but before I began, I rewatched the movies, just so I could compare them to the actual storyline and have them fresh in my mind. One thing that really stuck out for me was Aragorn.
In the movies, he was kinda portrayed as a little, I hate to say scared, but reluctant to assume his role as King of Gondor. He always seemed like he was avoiding it and didn't want anything to do with it. In the books, I did not get that impression AT ALL. He seemed very willing and ready to take up his destiny and didn't shy away from it at all. In fact, he actually seemed a little arrogant in parts because he was so ready to take up his kingship.

Anyone else notice this?

[Míchéal]

I also noticed this, he was given a very different personality for the movies, it took him a long time in the books to find the courage to stand up as heir to the throne while in the movies it was a very 'lets get this done NOW' attitude.
I think he was afraid of the dangers of showing who he was. (in the books)

[John_and_Yoko]

I also noticed this, he was given a very different personality for the movies, it took him a long time in the books to find the courage to stand up as heir to the throne while in the movies it was a very 'lets get this done NOW' attitude.
I think he was afraid of the dangers of showing who he was. (in the books)

Um...what?

In the book he revealed his true identity to the hobbits right from the start, and the sword was reforged in The Fellowship of the Ring. In the movies his true identity was revealed in Rivendell and the sword was reforged in The Return of the King.

Are you confused, or am I...?

[Míchéal]

I agree but he didn't make it so open as in the movies, it was a little hushed up in my opinion, or maybe i'm wrong and should reread?

[MonteGss]

Well, gunslinger you pretty much said the opposite of what my last post said and I just finished the series. I think you are a bit confused.

[MonteGss]

I'm wondering what the hard core LotR fans opinion of this is:
I just finished my reread (audio) of the series but before I began, I rewatched the movies, just so I could compare them to the actual storyline and have them fresh in my mind. One thing that really stuck out for me was Aragorn.
In the movies, he was kinda portrayed as a little, I hate to say scared, but reluctant to assume his role as King of Gondor. He always seemed like he was avoiding it and didn't want anything to do with it. In the books, I did not get that impression AT ALL. He seemed very willing and ready to take up his destiny and didn't shy away from it at all. In fact, he actually seemed a little arrogant in parts because he was so ready to take up his kingship.

Anyone else notice this?

I would love to hear R_of_G and ManOfWesternesse's opinions on this since I know they are big Rings-junkies as I aspire to be. :D

[Míchéal]

:( my bad. i just reread your post, where you say books, i thought you meant movies, i'm gonna back out of this thread slowly and reread LotR...

[Jean]

where you say books, i thought you meant movies
that is very Dr.Spooner ("Did I say Aristotle? I meant St. Paul") http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_grin.gif

the book Aragorn impressed me as a real king in exile. The movie Aragorn - as an unsuccessful plumber in disguise.

[jayson]

One thing that really stuck out for me was Aragorn.
In the movies, he was kinda portrayed as a little, I hate to say scared, but reluctant to assume his role as King of Gondor. He always seemed like he was avoiding it and didn't want anything to do with it. In the books, I did not get that impression AT ALL. He seemed very willing and ready to take up his destiny and didn't shy away from it at all. In fact, he actually seemed a little arrogant in parts because he was so ready to take up his kingship.

Anyone else notice this?

I would love to hear R_of_G and ManOfWesternesse's opinions on this since I know they are big Rings-junkies as I aspire to be. :D

I agree with you 100% Monte, as well as with what Jean said above about book-Aragorn vs. movie-Aragorn. I think a lot of it has to do with how the books were able to represent much more of (a) what Gondor was, and (b) how important the return of a king to Gondor was to the people. The movie does not even allude to exactly how long it had been since there was a king, and also, to my recollection, the movie portrays it as if Isildur was the last king and this is FAR from true. A LOT of it has to do with the riddiculous way in which Denethor was portrayed in the movies. I just think PJ did a terrible job of explaining what Gondor's history was and why it didn't have a king at the time of the story. In the books this is much more clear [well maybe except to Pippin :lol:].

In the books Aragorn has a richer history and the kingship means something. I think a lot could have been established by keeping the "Houses of Healing" section from the book in the movie. There is much established there about the traditions of Gondor and its kings. In the end, it all just seems to me that PJ wanted all the fighting scenes, but none of the important scenes that explain just what all the fighting is about. Yes, it's good versus evil, but there is SO much more to it than that. There is so much history between Sauron and the house of Elendil that is barely even hinted at in the movies. There is much to be said for Elrond's interest in seeing the Kingship restored since his brother Elros was the first King of Numenor [and Gondor is really just an extension of the Numenorian kingships]. So much history that PJ decided was not important. It doesn't all have to be there, but without it, the kingship will never seem as meaningful as it does in the books, and therefore movie-Aragorn will never seem anywhere near as kingly as book-Aragorn.

Ok, rant over. I await hearing Brian's take on this...

[ladysai]

In the books Aragorn has a richer history and the kingship means something.
~edit~
So much history that PJ decided was not important. It doesn't all have to be there, but without it, the kingship will never seem as meaningful as it does in the books, and therefore movie-Aragorn will never seem anywhere near as kingly as book-Aragorn.

Beautifully said!
I agree that the lack of background info in the movie made it harder to know the characters and their quests.
There just isnt time enough in the duration of a film to include everything that would give the film the same depth as the book.
You can't beat Tolkien's words. Period. :)

[jayson]

Beautifully said!
I agree that the lack of background info in the movie made it harder to know the characters and their quests.
There just isnt time enough in the duration of a film to include everything that would give the film the same depth as the book.
You can't beat Tolkien's words. Period. :)

thank you ladysai. i agree that a movie never could have included all of what Tolkien wrote , but like i have mentioned before, PJ lost a lot of screen time making up things that were never in the books [like Aragorn's fighting the wolf-riders and going over the cliff, or Faramir bringing Frodo to Osgiliath]. that is where i take the most exception. there would have been more time for the stuff Tolkien did write if they weren't busy filling the screen time with stuff he didn't.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Jayson, I'd agree wholeheartedly with your post above.
Of course it would have been very difficult in the movies to establish the nobility of the rank of the kings of Gondor. I agree PJ could have made more of an effort in that direction however.

We must remember too that there was hesitancy on the part of book-Aragorn, and self-doubt sometimes. He knew a time of sore trial was coming and I think he sometimes held himself up against the great Kings of his line and wondered at his ability to follow them. This was not major, but I feel it was there and maybe PJ overplayed it a bit?

[MonteGss]

Thanks guys for sharing your input. I am glad that I wasn't the only one who noticed these differences. Brian, I personally didn't feel their was any hesitancy on the part of book-Aragorn but I also know you have read the books about a billion more times than I have. :lol:

Anyway, I loved the book-Aragorn much more than the movie version though I must admit kinda liked what's-his-name playing him in the movies.

I also agree with what R_of_G said about maybe spending a little too much screen time on the "action-fight scenes" and making up "story-fillers" when he should have spent more time with Tolkien's storyline.


Thanks again for sharing! :)

[jayson]

Thanks guys for sharing your input. I am glad that I wasn't the only one who noticed these differences. Brian, I personally didn't feel their was any hesitancy on the part of book-Aragorn but I also know you have read the books about a billion more times than I have. :lol:

Anyway, I loved the book-Aragorn much more than the movie version though I must admit kinda liked what's-his-name playing him in the movies.

I also agree with what R_of_G said about maybe spending a little too much screen time on the "action-fight scenes" and making up "story-fillers" when he should have spent more time with Tolkien's storyline.


Thanks again for sharing! :)

Monte, I agree that Viggo Moretensen did a great job with the role as it was written. I think he was a great choice as Aragorn. I think all of the actors did well with the roles they were given [except perhaps Orlando Bloom who simply cannot act]. The only thing I didn't like about the movies was the story. I thought the casting and the look of them were great.

I do agree with Brian that Aragorn [as represented in the book] did have some hesitancy. That is what makes him a compelling character to me. He knows his history and knows that his ancestors failed where he must succeed and this plagues him with doubt. What makes Aragorn so "kingly" is that he manages to overcome his doubts and do what must be done.

[MonteGss]

Good points R_of_G. :)
I guess you guys are right...I do remember a number of scenes now, where Aragorn does seem to think about how his actions and decisions will affect the war and his future. Example...I had forgotten things such as he and the Dunnedain (sp?) comtemplating his next move (during Rohan time in Two Towers) and whether he should or should not look into the palantir and also whether/when he should have a presence in the city of Gondor in Book 3.

I really enjoyed the reader of the audios, Rob Inglis. I thought he did a great job.


Oh....I also agree that Orlando Bloom is pretty much only eye candy for the ladies and shouldn't be considered an actor. :lol:

[ladysai]

I really enjoyed the reader of the audios, Rob Inglis. I thought he did a great job.
Absolutely! He even had a decent voice to sing Tom Bombadil's little ditties, and the enchanting elf songs.
As much as I enjoyed the books, Inglis' portrayals of the characters really brought them to life, and to a home in my heart.
:)


Oh....I also agree that Orlando Bloom is pretty much only eye candy for the ladies
And the problem with that is...?
:P

[MonteGss]

I really enjoyed the reader of the audios, Rob Inglis. I thought he did a great job.
Absolutely! He even had a decent voice to sing Tom Bombadil's little ditties, and the enchanting elf songs.
As much as I enjoyed the books, Inglis' portrayals of the characters really brought them to life, and to a home in my heart.
:)
I was soooo impressed of Rob's singing. I remember reading the book when I was a kid and even later when I was older and kinda skimming through the songs cuz I wasn't interested. :lol: Rob Inglis not only sang them with a nice voice but they weren't boring!


Oh....I also agree that Orlando Bloom is pretty much only eye candy for the ladies

And the problem with that is...?
:P

Um, nothing! :) Except if you're a guy and want actors playing these roles. :P

[jayson]

Ladysai and Monte, I too think Rob Inglis gives a GREAT reading to Tolkien's work. He has made the audiobooks my go-to choice for re-reads.

[Darkthoughts]

Monte kindly sent me The Hobbit audio, so I can now agree with all of the above comments...especially what you said about the songs Monts, thats what I was going to say word for word!

Who is the necromancer that Gandalf mentions at the beginning of The Hobbit? Is this something thats covered in more detail in the Silmarion?

[MonteGss]

I understood the Necromancer to be Sauron. It is mentioned later in the LoTR that he used to dwell in the forest before the White council expelled him. I'm sure R_of_G or Brian can confirm this. :)

[Darkthoughts]

I thought it was that other geezer...who's name I can't remember! :lol:...who Sauron ends up overthrowing - am I making this up? :orely: Hmmm, its nearly time for my annual LotR reread *note to self: pay attention!* :P

[ManOfWesternesse]

The Necromancer, as mentioned in the Hobbit (Book only for me - never had the Audio), was Sauron. I'm not entirely sure Morgoth was never referred to by the same name however - but I'd think not in The Hobbit anyway, if ever?
Indeed, and again I'm not 100% on this, was he ever referred to as 'Sauron' in The Hobbit at all? I think in that tale he was only ever 'The Necromancer'.

[jayson]

The Necromancer, as mentioned in the Hobbit (Book only for me - never had the Audio), was Sauron. I'm not entirely sure Morgoth was never referred to by the same name however - but I'd think not in The Hobbit anyway, if ever?
Indeed, and again I'm not 100% on this, was he ever referred to as 'Sauron' in The Hobbit at all? I think in that tale he was only ever 'The Necromancer'.

Brian, you are 100% correct. Sauron and "The Necromancer" are one in the same, and Tolkien does not refer to him as Sauron, only "The Necromancer" in the Hobbit. Also, you are correct that Melkor [aka Morgoth] was not ever called by this name, and was not mentioned at all in the Hobbit.

[MonteGss]

Yes! I was correct! :D
See? Audiobooks do help me remember books better! :lol: That's why I remember random parts of TDT, cuz I've read it and heard it. :)

Go Audios!

[Darkthoughts]

The Necromancer, as mentioned in the Hobbit (Book only for me - never had the Audio), was Sauron. I'm not entirely sure Morgoth was never referred to by the same name however - but I'd think not in The Hobbit anyway, if ever?
Thank you :couple: And also to Jayson...and I suppose Monte! :lol:

I know Sauron isn't mentioned in The Hobbit, I should have put "as we learn in LotR" to clarify, but y'know :D

[MonteGss]

:D

[ManOfWesternesse]

...I know Sauron isn't mentioned in The Hobbit, I should have put "as we learn in LotR" to clarify, but y'know :D

Of course, all this again leads to questions about how they will handle the new films.
- We have already met Sauron - are they now going to refer to him only as The Necromancer in the 2 films??, just to be 'true' to that Book. Or do they stick to 'Sauron' to be 'true' to the story as we ('we' the movie-going public) know it to date? Or both, to cover the bases??

[jayson]

Of course, all this again leads to questions about how they will handle the new films.
- We have already met Sauron - are they now going to refer to him only as The Necromancer in the 2 films??, just to be 'true' to that Book. Or do they stick to 'Sauron' to be 'true' to the story as we ('we' the movie-going public) know it to date? Or both, to cover the bases??

I would hope they would refer to him as the Necromancer in any Hobbit films. The discovery by Gandalf and the White Council that the Necromancer is, in fact, Sauron, is a crucial plot point historically. The fact that it is Sauron is what brings the One Ring back into play so crucially. I think they can show us that some of the Council, particularly Gandalf, believe that it is possible that it is Sauron. It was suspected, just not known for a fact.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Yeah, that might play ok Jayson.
It's just awkward having to do the Hobbit movie(s) AFTER the LotR movies. Very hard to step back into that lighter vein from the darker work we've already seen. Still, it's a challenge for them and, hopefully, one they are up to delivering on!

[jayson]

I agree it will be odd to go backwards, but like we've both said, if they stick to the source material, they will be on the right track to delivering a quality movie.

[Darkthoughts]

I've been listening to the LotR audios and just finished one of my very favourite parts, which is the hobbits stay with Tom Bombadil.

I love his character and have always been very curious to find out more about him - what is he?
I have The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, which is a fun read, but does not disclose much by way of his nature - is he discussed in the Silmarion?

I think of him as being like Pan, The Green Man or a Herne the Hunter type figure - an embodiment of nature itself.

[John_and_Yoko]

I've been listening to the LotR audios and just finished one of my very favourite parts, which is the hobbits stay with Tom Bombadil.

I love his character and have always been very curious to find out more about him - what is he?
I have The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, which is a fun read, but does not disclose much by way of his nature - is he discussed in the Silmarion?

I think of him as being like Pan, The Green Man or a Herne the Hunter type figure - an embodiment of nature itself.

I don't think he's discussed in The Silmarillion, no. To be honest, I think you've more or less exhausted the information that exists on him.

[jayson]

I've been listening to the LotR audios and just finished one of my very favourite parts, which is the hobbits stay with Tom Bombadil.

I love his character and have always been very curious to find out more about him - what is he?
I have The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, which is a fun read, but does not disclose much by way of his nature - is he discussed in the Silmarion?

I think of him as being like Pan, The Green Man or a Herne the Hunter type figure - an embodiment of nature itself.

I don't think he's discussed in The Silmarillion, no. To be honest, I think you've more or less exhausted the information that exists on him.

J&Y is correct. He is not discussed in The Silmarillion at all. Bombadil is one of the enduring mysteries of Tolkien's writing as he never did expand upon what exactly he was. There's plenty of room for speculation, but there are no actual answers.

[Darkthoughts]

What are your views on his nature?

[Brice]

an embodiment of nature itself.

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

[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. :excited: 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. :excited: I'm thinking I need to commit to that after the holidays.

They are GREAT on audio Sarah

I would highly recommend them highly. :clap:

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. :D

[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... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sad.gif )

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. :couple:





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. :innocent:

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.... :blush:

[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.