Lord of the Rings

[Pex]

I . . . have never read the books before. I got the trilogy and The Hobbit via secret santa. I finished Hobbit and now reading Fellowship of the Ring.

I'm glad I finally know who Tom Bombadil is. I kept seeing the character brought up whenever the story is discussed and never had a clue what anyone was talking about.

People often say that the story influenced D&D. Even the writers of the game say so. I accepted their word, but even after seeing the movies (including the famous cartoon and Return of the King cartoon) I didn't fully grasp the concept. OMG do I get it now. Bear Warriors. Wood elves. Spiders. Rangers. Halflings. Elves journey to elsewhere. Everything. Now I truly understand why this story is so beloved by Geekdom.

The Eagles joke doesn't work. Even though the book doesn't literally say the Eagles cannot fly Frodo to Mt. Doom, it is explained why it couldn't be done. Sauron did have spies everywhere, including a large flock of crows and hawks. The Fellowship had to remain hidden. The Eagles flying Frodo would have announced "Here I Am Come Get Me!". Loophole filled. :smallsmile:

[Rockphed]

Congratulations. The Lord of the rings is one of my favorite books. When I travel by plane, it is the book I read the last few times.

The thing I love most about it is how expansive the world feels. I have driven from one end of the US to the other, yet middle earth feels much larger.

[GloatingSwine]

I have driven from one end of the US to the other, yet middle earth feels much larger.

That's because they had to walk ;)


(The journey in the book is probably about halfway across the continental US. Not a short distance on foot, even if you don't have hobbit legs).

[Bulldog Psion]

Glad you've enjoyed it so much. I lost track of my re-readings somewhere around #14 or so. :smallwink: A copy of it will probably fall out of my nerveless fingers when I die... :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, that's a great point about the hawks and crebain spotting Frodo and the company flying to Mordor; never thought of that before.

[Traab]

I . . . have never read the books before. I got the trilogy and The Hobbit via secret santa. I finished Hobbit and now reading Fellowship of the Ring.

I'm glad I finally know who Tom Bombadil is. I kept seeing the character brought up whenever the story is discussed and never had a clue what anyone was talking about.

People often say that the story influenced D&D. Even the writers of the game say so. I accepted their word, but even after seeing the movies (including the famous cartoon and Return of the King cartoon) I didn't fully grasp the concept. OMG do I get it now. Bear Warriors. Wood elves. Spiders. Rangers. Halflings. Elves journey to elsewhere. Everything. Now I truly understand why this story is so beloved by Geekdom.

The Eagles joke doesn't work. Even though the book doesn't literally say the Eagles cannot fly Frodo to Mt. Doom, it is explained why it couldn't be done. Sauron did have spies everywhere, including a large flock of crows and hawks. The Fellowship had to remain hidden. The Eagles flying Frodo would have announced "Here I Am Come Get Me!". Loophole filled. :smallsmile:

Pfft. So the crows spot frodo on an eagle, what then? By the time they reach sauron to report, (There arent a plethora of palantirs hanging about) they are hundreds of miles away. And even if there WAS a way for sauron to spot them incoming, he still wouldnt know what frodo plans. He would likely be giggling like a school girl walking through a feather pile at the idea of this hobbit coming to challenge him as the new "owner" of the ring. So here he is, standing at his gates with nazgul waiting for the "big battle" when, "Wtf? Why did he fly past us? Wait, why is he heading for...? OH DEAR MORGOTH! MT DOOM?!?!?!" Honestly, the real reason the eagle plan would fail is the same reason the plan they setup basically failed. Noone, literally noone, can willingly destroy the ring. Had an eagle flown frodo, by the time they reached the cracks of doom, the eagle would have eaten frodo and been wearing the ring on a talon tip or something. (I spoiled it because I almost forgot you are just reading the first book) But yeah, the series really deserves its iconic status, even though looking back at it now it feels sorta basic. Mainly because it IS the basic format that has been built on for decades now.

[ThePhantom]

The eagle plan also doesn't work because they have no way to contract the eagles about the idea. After all, if Gandalt could, he wouldn't have been struck at Isengard for weeks. So if they wanted to try the eagles, they would have spent at least weeks trying to find the eagles and that would make it easier for either Saruon or Saruman to find them.

[Emperordaniel]

Pfft. So the crows spot frodo on an eagle, what then? By the time they reach sauron to report, (There arent a plethora of palantirs hanging about) they are hundreds of miles away.

The crebain didn't report directly to Sauron, they reported to Saruman, who did have a palantir. Plus, as GloatingSwine mentioned, the distance the Fellowship traveled is more or less equivalent to trekking across half of the United States - even a jetliner traveling at 500 knots takes some time to go that far, let alone an eagle flying at one-tenth of that speed.

Plus, Sauron had already given at least one of the Nazgul a fellbeast by the time the Fellowship was sailing down the Anduin, so he would probably have been able to intercept them in mid-air anyhow.

[Raimun]

Also, the eagles are kind of jerks and usually unwilling to take risks, even if the fate of the Middle-Earth is on the line. So, even if they got the word to the eagles (which would take long, as pointed out) the eagle king wouldn't most likely lend the help of his subjects. Sure, they're willing carry Gandalf high above the ground, over lands that have just regular orcs, because the eagle king owes Gandalf. But flying to Mordor? Eagles wouldn't do that when Sauron rules his lands. Sauron has his defenses, even against aerial attacks, such as ring wraiths on fell beasts. At the battle of the black gates, they did something very uncharacteristic.

But yeah. Lord of the Rings is a very impressive book. There's just so much going on. :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

But yeah. Lord of the Rings is a very impressive book. There's just so much going on. :smallsmile:

What I really appreciate in the book is the language and the style it's written in. The book is written in such a dignified manner that it makes most fantasy feel as if it were hastily scrambled together from notes by comparison. Tolkien's mastery of language just radiates through the text. The use of such expansive vocabulary and powerful expression is seldom found in contemporary fantasy; the language in Lord of the Rings simply stands as a testament to how rich expression can really be in English in the hands of a maestro, though also as a somber reminder of how rare such mastery truly is. It's always a bit hard for me to start another book afterwards since chances are the writing feels clumsy and uninspired even if the story were sublime.

Lord of the Rings actually contributes heavily to my decision to enjoy media (particularly books) in their language of origin. Further, Tolkien is one of the major reasons I've become a linguist (a story I've since found I share with many of my colleagues). Lord of the Rings is one of the rare works where the guise is worthy of marvel. The story is certainly splendid but to me the expression is the most outstanding aspect of the book.

[factotum]

At the battle of the black gates, they did something very uncharacteristic.


But they did it at the Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit, too, so how is it uncharacteristic? :smallconfused: And I'm pretty sure they also helped bring down Ancalagon the Black during the War of Wrath that destroyed Angband (along with most of the rest of Beleriand, but hey, you always got to break a few eggs making an omelette, amirite?), and he was so ruddy massive that he broke a *mountain* when he fell on it!

Terry Pratchett (RIP) once said in an interview, "If you don't believe LOTR is the best book in the world when you're 15, there's something wrong with you. If you still believe it's the best book in the world when you're 50, there's also probably also something wrong with you.". I'd agree with that--the book is all kinds of awesome, but you start to see the flaws after the 15th reading or thereabouts. :smallwink:

[Aotrs Commander]

I always thought that was a rather unfair and a little mean comment by Pratchett. LotR is simply a completely different style to his own works (which are more character-driven, rather than world-and-story-driven, as it were). Pratchett wrote comedy/drama, Tolkien principally wrote history/mythology.

(And, much as I like Pratchett... When I look at my two most favourite books - LotR and Spacecraft 2000-2100AD - I clearly do prefer the latter. Spacecraft, in fact, is easily the largest single influence on my life and unlife, though it took decades until I realised it.)

[Murk]

What I really appreciate in the book is the language and the style it's written in. The book is written in such a dignified manner that it makes most fantasy feel as if it were hastily scrambled together from notes by comparison. Tolkien's mastery of language just radiates through the text. The use of such expansive vocabulary and powerful expression is seldom found in contemporary fantasy; the language in Lord of the Rings simply stands as a testament to how rich expression can really be in English in the hands of a maestro, though also as a somber reminder of how rare such mastery truly is. It's always a bit hard for me to start another book afterwards since chances are the writing feels clumsy and uninspired even if the story were sublime.


This is interesting. I might get lynched for this post, but Lord of the Rings is honestly the only book I can think of that I felt was greatly improved by being made into a movie.
That is because I really, really like the story and characterisation (though more from a historical perspective; it's horribly clichéd of course, but only because it was good enough for countless of people to do it again and again), but I also dislike the writing style.

Part of that is the time period, and how people wrote in those days. It's also a part of where Tolkien decided to lay the focus. No matter how beautifully expressed or what nice words you use, I don't want to read about different types of trees every page. I think Tolkien described the color of the sun set every new day. Sure, it's beautifully written, but, honestly, if I'm reading an epic story about fantasitical wars and interesting characters, I do not quite care about the color of the sunset.

That's me, of course, and I knew Tolkien was famed for his use of the language, but I didn't expect anyone to love the book because of it (since for me I love the book despite it). So that's cool.

[thorgrim29]

From what I understand that mostly comes from his influence. Tolkien was strongly influenced by nordic sagas and other spoken word stories. Those have to retread constantly because they aren't told in one sitting and maybe somebody just walked in the bar and if you remind him that so-and-so is the son of whatever who was known for killing the whatsit of who-cares then he can enjoy the story. Also I assume that it makes it easier for the storyteller if the story always has familiar beats.

A good example of that would be the old testament actually, it's almost as bad as DBZ as far as "previously on" is concerned but that's because it descends from a spoken tradition.

[BannedInSchool]

Next up: Turin Turambar in the Silmarillion and making Oedipus Rex look like a Disney movie.

But for LotR it seems to me you have to settle down and look at it as a series of episodes, kind of a "This week in Lord of the Rings". Also a guided bus tour of Middle Earth and its history. :smallwink:

[Eldan]

I love it. I could read a whole book of Tolkien just describing trees.

[hamlet]

I . . . have never read the books before. I got the trilogy and The Hobbit via secret santa. I finished Hobbit and now reading Fellowship of the Ring.

I'm glad I finally know who Tom Bombadil is. I kept seeing the character brought up whenever the story is discussed and never had a clue what anyone was talking about.

People often say that the story influenced D&D. Even the writers of the game say so. I accepted their word, but even after seeing the movies (including the famous cartoon and Return of the King cartoon) I didn't fully grasp the concept. OMG do I get it now. Bear Warriors. Wood elves. Spiders. Rangers. Halflings. Elves journey to elsewhere. Everything. Now I truly understand why this story is so beloved by Geekdom.

The Eagles joke doesn't work. Even though the book doesn't literally say the Eagles cannot fly Frodo to Mt. Doom, it is explained why it couldn't be done. Sauron did have spies everywhere, including a large flock of crows and hawks. The Fellowship had to remain hidden. The Eagles flying Frodo would have announced "Here I Am Come Get Me!". Loophole filled. :smallsmile:

Glad that you're enjoying the books! It's always nice to see somebody succumb to their magic.

Just as a bit of trivia: the similarities and influences to D&D are actually largely cosmetic (i.e., the 5 races, some of the monsters, and etc) and are done, reputedly, as an attempt to sell folks on it whose only exposure to fantasy was LOTR instead of the rest of what "really" influenced D&D. Read Three Hearts Three Lions and you'll see so much of D&D's DNA in it that you'll be astonished.

[Bulldog Psion]

That's me, of course, and I knew Tolkien was famed for his use of the language, but I didn't expect anyone to love the book because of it (since for me I love the book despite it). So that's cool.

It's the language that does it for me, to a large extent, also. It's like thunder and wind in the branches and the waves of endless oceans and the rise and fall of kings and mighty empires, and the beauty and tragedy of existence turned into prose. A lot of it brings tears to my eyes, literally, just from the overwhelming beauty of the writing.


Next up: Turin Turambar in the Silmarillion and making Oedipus Rex look like a Disney movie.

Yes, that's quite true. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Just as a bit of trivia: the similarities and influences to D&D are actually largely cosmetic (i.e., the 5 races, some of the monsters, and etc) and are done, reputedly, as an attempt to sell folks on it whose only exposure to fantasy was LOTR instead of the rest of what "really" influenced D&D.

That's one of the big reasons why so many things that appeared first in the Lord of the Rings often seem so terribly cliched. People copied Tolkien a lot, but that copying was almost only purely cosmetic. Tolkien had good narrative reasons for many of the things he included in the story while most immitators just included them without knowing what purpose or context they would have.

I am always ambigous about the book. I don't care about the chracters or the plot, and think it's painfully reactionary in its overall content. But when it comes to execution and presentation, I think Tolkien really did very well and is rarely equaled or exceeded. He didn't do just fiction, but tried to make it feel like myth. And made some really effort to make to give the work a quality, for which the technical term is "numinous". You could call it supernatural or otherworldly, or if you want "spiritual". It mades the attempt to create a sense of magic and wonder. Which is something I am greatly missing in pretty much all recent fantasy writers. Most fantasy I read, even when it's fun, generally feels somewhat banal. Lord of the Rings can be accused of many thing, but I think being banal is not one of them.

And the attention to weather and landscape is an important part of that. It's not just stuff that is there, it's intended to add something relevant to the story as a whole. Same with all the ruins, monuments, and dead kings.

[hamlet]

That's one of the big reasons why so many things that appeared first in the Lord of the Rings often seem so terribly cliched. People copied Tolkien a lot, but that copying was almost only purely cosmetic. Tolkien had good narrative reasons for many of the things he included in the story while most immitators just included them without knowing what purpose or context they would have.

I am always ambigous about the book. I don't care about the chracters or the plot, and think it's painfully reactionary in its overall content. But when it comes to execution and presentation, I think Tolkien really did very well and is rarely equaled or exceeded. He didn't do just fiction, but tried to make it feel like myth. And made some really effort to make to give the work a quality, for which the technical term is "numinous". You could call it supernatural or otherworldly, or if you want "spiritual". It mades the attempt to create a sense of magic and wonder. Which is something I am greatly missing in pretty much all recent fantasy writers. Most fantasy I read, even when it's fun, generally feels somewhat banal. Lord of the Rings can be accused of many thing, but I think being banal is not one of them.

And the attention to weather and landscape is an important part of that. It's not just stuff that is there, it's intended to add something relevant to the story as a whole. Same with all the ruins, monuments, and dead kings.

Yes. Which is why I get vastly annoyed when people go off half-cocked calling Tolkien nothing more than black and white pap when, really, it's the person who doesn't understand the story at all or the skill that went into writing it. Whether or not you like the books, you have to acknowledge the skill and intelligence that went into crafting them.

Again, probably the biggest gripe I have about the PJ movies.

[WalkingTarget]

I'm glad you're enjoying it so far. Tolkien's work is one of my favorite areas of interest.



I'm glad I finally know who Tom Bombadil is. I kept seeing the character brought up whenever the story is discussed and never had a clue what anyone was talking about.


Here's something to consider about Tom specifically: Tolkien himself noted that he's not important to the narrative, but there is a reason he's there (beyond just an excuse to reuse a character he'd invented previously and as a chance for something like an "adventure" so close to the Shire). The lack of narrative purpose leaves a lot of readers cold, but consider some of what goes on there (and what mention he gets during the Council of Elrond) regarding the Ring and see if you can identify why it's important.

[Pex]

What I really appreciate in the book is the language and the style it's written in. The book is written in such a dignified manner that it makes most fantasy feel as if it were hastily scrambled together from notes by comparison. Tolkien's mastery of language just radiates through the text. The use of such expansive vocabulary and powerful expression is seldom found in contemporary fantasy; the language in Lord of the Rings simply stands as a testament to how rich expression can really be in English in the hands of a maestro, though also as a somber reminder of how rare such mastery truly is. It's always a bit hard for me to start another book afterwards since chances are the writing feels clumsy and uninspired even if the story were sublime.

Lord of the Rings actually contributes heavily to my decision to enjoy media (particularly books) in their language of origin. Further, Tolkien is one of the major reasons I've become a linguist (a story I've since found I share with many of my colleagues). Lord of the Rings is one of the rare works where the guise is worthy of marvel. The story is certainly splendid but to me the expression is the most outstanding aspect of the book.

Interesting you should say that considering three times already up to my reading he has used the pejorative word for homosexuals. Of course he meant it as the word's original meaning, British slang for "cigarette" and wood of that size and shape for kindling. It was the tendency in Britain for homosexuals to smoke cigarettes while straight men smoked cigars that led to the word becoming pejorative. Your point still stands. It would be unfair to use modern common vernacular to condemn the common vernacular of the times.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D and Tolkien Insofar as literary inspiration, Fritz Lieber and his Lankmar stories with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, as well as Conan the Barbarian, John Carter of Mars, and Elric of Melnibone were as big as, or bigger than, Tolkien's .... with Jack Vance profiding the key magical framework.

The basic LoTR connection is the Fantasy Supplement to the Chainmail rules. What Gygax and Perren wanted to be able to do was take their medieval miniatures wargame and fold into it things like the battle of five armies or the siege of Minas Tirith.

So, they made up a Fantasy supplement to Chainmail. (Orcs, Ogres, Heroes, Superheroes, Dragons, etc). The sum total of monsters in Appendix E is folded into the combat matrix:


BALROG
DRAGON
ELEMENTAL
ENT (TREE)
GIANT
HERO (Later the 4th lvl/4hd Fighting Man)
LYCANTHROPE
ROC
SUPER HERO (later the 8th lvl/8 HD Fighting Man)
TROLL, OGRE
WIGHT, GHOUL
WIZARD
WRAITH

FWIW, the Tolkien estate got quite shirty with TSR about using things like Ent and Hobbit in their game, so that got changed due to various legal action.

So yeah, the influence is there, but LoTR's most powerful connection was how its use in the Fantasy supplement was followed up in the various play tests and dungeoneering episodes that came once Arneson and Gygax got to synergize their various gaming ideas. If you read the Foreward to Men and Magic, written by Gygax, you get a whiff of how it all came together.

First paragraph goes like this. (Citation: Men and Magic, page 3, ©COPYRIGHT 1974 • TACTICAL STUDIES RULES)


ONCE UPON A TIME, long, long ago there was a little group known as the Castle and Crusade Society. Their fantasy rules were published, and to this writer's knowledge, brought about much of the current interest in fantasy wargaming. For a time the group grew and prospered, and Dave Arneson decided to begin a medieval fantasy campaign game for his active Twin Cities club. From the map of the "land" of the "Great Kingdom" and environs — the territory of the C & C Society — Dave located a nice bog wherein to nest the weird enclave of "Blackmoor", a spot between the "Great Kingdom" and the fearsome "Egg of Coot". From the CHAINMAIL fantasy rules he drew ideas for a far more complex and exciting game, and thus began a campaign which still thrives as of this writing! In due course the news reached my ears, and the result is what you have in your hands at this moment. While the C & C Society is no longer, its spirit lives on, and we believe that all wargamers who are interested in the medieval period, not just fantasy buffs, will enjoy playing DUNGEONS and DRAGONS.

[Bobblit]

[...] Here's something to consider about Tom specifically: Tolkien himself noted that he's not important to the narrative, but there is a reason he's there (beyond just an excuse to reuse a character he'd invented previously and as a chance for something like an "adventure" so close to the Shire). The lack of narrative purpose leaves a lot of readers cold, but consider some of what goes on there (and what mention he gets during the Council of Elrond) regarding the Ring and see if you can identify why it's important.
I read the books a lot of years ago, when I was 13 or so (also, in Spanish), and I don't remember much. But I do remember thinking that Tom Bombadil was out of place, like he made no sense to the story and was there just to prove some sort of point. I probably should re-read them... But, well, now I'm curious: what is the reason for Tom Bombadil to be there? Why is it so important?

[veti]

Tolkien's mastery of language just radiates through the text. The use of such expansive vocabulary and powerful expression is seldom found in contemporary fantasy; the language in Lord of the Rings simply stands as a testament to how rich expression can really be in English in the hands of a maestro, though also as a somber reminder of how rare such mastery truly is. It's always a bit hard for me to start another book afterwards since chances are the writing feels clumsy and uninspired even if the story were sublime.

This, exactly. Tolkien's prose is simply head and shoulders above - well, just about all his followers put together. (Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, David Eddings, Stephen Donaldson, I'm looking at you.)

(His poetry, on the other hand, is awful stuff. Maybe most of those songs were originally written in Elvish and suffered in translation, I don't know - but whatever the reason, I just skip it nowadays.)


Interesting you should say that considering three times already up to my reading he has used the pejorative word for homosexuals. Of course he meant it as the word's original meaning, British slang for "cigarette" and wood of that size and shape for kindling. It was the tendency in Britain for homosexuals to smoke cigarettes while straight men smoked cigars that led to the word becoming pejorative.

I... doubt that. First of all, the use of the word to mean "homosexual" didn't come from Britain, it was an exclusively American coinage for decades. The word has never been considered offensive in Britain - it's becoming so now, basically by osmosis from America, but even today the shortened form has several other meanings that are more prevalent than its American usage. (As well as "cigarette", it also means "a tiresome chore" or "to be tired, worn out". There's also a now-archaic, but still well known, meaning from 19th-century public school culture. To say nothing of the Welsh meatball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******_%28food%29).)

Second, at the time of the First World War, when the word started to come into use in America, cigars were an extreme rarity in Britain - just about everyone smoked cigarettes. There's a well known WW1 song (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_Up_Your_Troubles_in_Your_Old_Kit-Bag) with the line: "While you've a lucifer to light your f-g/Smile, boys, that's the style". Cigars fell out of favour in Britain then - possibly because of wartime scarcity - and to this day they've never really recovered.

[Eldariel]

This is interesting. I might get lynched for this post, but Lord of the Rings is honestly the only book I can think of that I felt was greatly improved by being made into a movie.
That is because I really, really like the story and characterisation (though more from a historical perspective; it's horribly clichéd of course, but only because it was good enough for countless of people to do it again and again), but I also dislike the writing style.

Part of that is the time period, and how people wrote in those days. It's also a part of where Tolkien decided to lay the focus. No matter how beautifully expressed or what nice words you use, I don't want to read about different types of trees every page. I think Tolkien described the color of the sun set every new day. Sure, it's beautifully written, but, honestly, if I'm reading an epic story about fantasitical wars and interesting characters, I do not quite care about the color of the sunset.

That's me, of course, and I knew Tolkien was famed for his use of the language, but I didn't expect anyone to love the book because of it (since for me I love the book despite it). So that's cool.

Indeed, every mind is different and beauty takes many forms. Lynching is thus rather unlikely to happen: what you experience is uniquely yours and nobody has grounds to condemn your experience. I'm thinking your experience may well be the majority opinion among contemporary readers. I base this belief on my experience that my personal concept of aesthetics seems to clash with the modern zeitgeist. I actually love the way LotR is written on two levels: I love the adept wordplay I already brought up, and I love words painting a world in my mind - that's also something Tolkien excels at. The book paints me a picture of any given locale: the Shire, the Old Forest, the Barrow-Downs, Bree, Rivendell, Laurelindorenan, Edoras, Aglarond, Minas Tirith, Orthanc, Ithilien, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, the Black Gate, Fangorn, countless places in wilderness. I love how it allows me to picture these locations and their inhabitants in painstaking detail if I just stop and take a moment to delve inside the text and see how the world looks like.

Mind, I don't think it's perfect of course. Nothing is. The early Shire chapters were certainly slow and difficult for me to read the first time and I still find the book much too descriptive at that point but after those chapters, I find the book hits the kind of a perfect equilibrium between description and motion. I relish the description: it allows me to delve deeper into the world and constantly imagine what the characters might be seeing and thinking at that very moment. What the scene looks like from the outside as well as the inside each participant. The choice of words allows for highlighting the subtle differences that might else go unexplored. Actually, I'd first read the book in Finnish and after I read it in English I realized just how impossible it is to truly translate every level of text. The Finnish text has to abide by the references and the spirit of Finnish and so much of the deeper level of the English text is lost.

Somewhat related, I'm a bit sad Tolkien opted not to use the Elizabethan "thou" vs. "you" distinction to express the difference between familiar and formal singular 2nd person pronoun. He mentions in the appendices that this is e.g. why Pippin was thought to be a hobbit lord at Minas Tirith and that Westeros (the language the book was "originally" written in) does indeed make the distinction, but as English doesn't, Tolkien didn't spell it out in any way. Thus, even though Finnish does have separate pronouns for familiar and formal addressing of a second person, the Finnish translator couldn't make use of this system either.


Interesting you should say that considering three times already up to my reading he has used the pejorative word for homosexuals. Of course he meant it as the word's original meaning, British slang for "cigarette" and wood of that size and shape for kindling. It was the tendency in Britain for homosexuals to smoke cigarettes while straight men smoked cigars that led to the word becoming pejorative. Your point still stands. It would be unfair to use modern common vernacular to condemn the common vernacular of the times.

I would argue he has not in fact used the word for homosexual since that's not the word he wrote. The word he meant is the word he wrote, after all. Even today, the word still carries the meaning of "merry, lively". The meaning is of course overshadowed by the meaning that hijacked the lexeme - an unfortunately common graveyard for expressions. It is such a pity that word pejoration is many times more common than amelioration, and so easily occurs unintended. The expressiveness of the language suffers as a consequence. Worst of all, pejoration spreads like wildfire even across cultures and languages. "Neekeri" was a Finnish word for a black person with no negative connotations still in my youth but due to its similarity to the English word, it's now considered offensive.

[Aotrs Commander]

I would argue he has not in fact used the word for homosexual since that's not the word he wrote. The word he meant is the word he wrote, after all. Even today, the word still carries the meaning of "merry, lively". The meaning is of course overshadowed by the meaning that hijacked the lexeme - an unfortunately common graveyard for expressions. It is such a pity that word pejoration is many times more common than amelioration, and so easily occurs unintended. The expressiveness of the language suffers as a consequence. Worst of all, pejoration spreads like wildfire even across cultures and languages. "Neekeri" was a Finnish word for a black person with no negative connotations still in my youth but due to its similarity to the English word, it's now considered offensive.

I don't think Pex talking about the word "gay" (though what you say is true); I suspect he means the word "fagot" (i.e. a bundle of sticks used for burning; which is NOT, by-the-by, the same spelling as the homosexual derogartive, which has an additional "g" (thank you dictionary.com!) and/or the three-letter shortened version of same. (Which as stated, at least in this part of the country, is most often contextually used as slang for cigarette "as in, I'm going out for a [word]" or "fagpacket calculation" (meaning a rough order of magnitude calculation (as might be written on whatever one had to hand, e.g. a packet of cigarettes.))

[Eldariel]

I don't think Pex talking about the word "gay" (though what you say is true); I suspect he means the word "fagot" (i.e. a bundle of sticks used for burning; which is NOT, by-the-by, the same spelling as the homosexual derogartive, which has an additional "g" (thank you dictionary.com!) and/or the three-letter shortened version of same. (Which as stated, at least in this part of the country, is most often contextually used as slang for cigarette "as in, I'm going out for a [word]" or "fagpacket calculation" (meaning a rough order of magnitude calculation (as might be written on whatever one had to hand, e.g. a packet of cigarettes.))

Oh, right, that. Funny, I never paid it any mind. Though it can be spelt with one or two "g"s, I do believe. I don't actually remember offhand, which is used in the book. It's been a long while since I last read it.

[Pex]

It's two g's in the book, both for what Sam wants to smoke and the wood Boromir wants for a fire.

The book I'm reading at least, if it's different based on printing.

[Eldan]

Indeed, every mind is different and beauty takes many forms. Lynching is thus rather unlikely to happen: what you experience is uniquely yours and nobody has grounds to condemn your experience. I'm thinking your experience may well be the majority opinion among contemporary readers. I base this belief on my experience that my personal concept of aesthetics seems to clash with the modern zeitgeist. I actually love the way LotR is written on two levels: I love the adept wordplay I already brought up, and I love words painting a world in my mind - that's also something Tolkien excels at. The book paints me a picture of any given locale: the Shire, the Old Forest, the Barrow-Downs, Bree, Rivendell, Laurelindorenan, Edoras, Aglarond, Minas Tirith, Orthanc, Ithilien, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, the Black Gate, Fangorn, countless places in wilderness. I love how it allows me to picture these locations and their inhabitants in painstaking detail if I just stop and take a moment to delve inside the text and see how the world looks like.

Mind, I don't think it's perfect of course. Nothing is. The early Shire chapters were certainly slow and difficult for me to read the first time and I still find the book much too descriptive at that point but after those chapters, I find the book hits the kind of a perfect equilibrium between description and motion. I relish the description: it allows me to delve deeper into the world and constantly imagine what the characters might be seeing and thinking at that very moment. What the scene looks like from the outside as well as the inside each participant. The choice of words allows for highlighting the subtle differences that might else go unexplored. Actually, I'd first read the book in Finnish and after I read it in English I realized just how impossible it is to truly translate every level of text. The Finnish text has to abide by the references and the spirit of Finnish and so much of the deeper level of the English text is lost.

Somewhat related, I'm a bit sad Tolkien opted not to use the Elizabethan "thou" vs. "you" distinction to express the difference between familiar and formal singular 2nd person pronoun. He mentions in the appendices that this is e.g. why Pippin was thought to be a hobbit lord at Minas Tirith and that Westeros (the language the book was "originally" written in) does indeed make the distinction, but as English doesn't, Tolkien didn't spell it out in any way. Thus, even though Finnish does have separate pronouns for familiar and formal addressing of a second person, the Finnish translator couldn't make use of this system either.



I would argue he has not in fact used the word for homosexual since that's not the word he wrote. The word he meant is the word he wrote, after all. Even today, the word still carries the meaning of "merry, lively". The meaning is of course overshadowed by the meaning that hijacked the lexeme - an unfortunately common graveyard for expressions. It is such a pity that word pejoration is many times more common than amelioration, and so easily occurs unintended. The expressiveness of the language suffers as a consequence. Worst of all, pejoration spreads like wildfire even across cultures and languages. "Neekeri" was a Finnish word for a black person with no negative connotations still in my youth but due to its similarity to the English word, it's now considered offensive.

Interestingly, the German translator didn't just go for polite forms, they went for Archaic polite forms, too. Which are even more polite than normal polite forms.

[huttj509]

That's because they had to walk ;)


(The journey in the book is probably about halfway across the continental US. Not a short distance on foot, even if you don't have hobbit legs).

The path they take from the Shire is ~1500 miles. More like 1200 as the nazgul flies.

[Eldariel]

Interestingly, the German translator didn't just go for polite forms, they went for Archaic polite forms, too. Which are even more polite than normal polite forms.

Oh? That's quite intriguing indeed. I've read the Finnish translator's commentary and he stated there was no way to know exactly where the formal and the informal forms were intended so he claimed he had no way to use them. I guess the German translation then presents a greater departure from the source, aiming more at producing the best product as the translators sees it rather than the most faithful translation, which seems to have been the goal of the Finnish translation. Hmm, mayhap I ought to give the German one a whirl and see how I like it...

[Eldan]

The German translator worked together with Tolkien, who obviously had some idea of German, too. He also convinced them not to use the more common GErman word "elf" and go for "elb" instead, to avoid some of the connotations. (A lot of people still think "tiny flower pixie" when they hear elf.)

[Raimun]

But they did it at the Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit, too, so how is it uncharacteristic? :smallconfused: And I'm pretty sure they also helped bring down Ancalagon the Black during the War of Wrath that destroyed Angband (along with most of the rest of Beleriand, but hey, you always got to break a few eggs making an omelette, amirite?), and he was so ruddy massive that he broke a *mountain* when he fell on it!


Eagles at the Third Age usually only fly to aid other free peoples in two broad scenarios:
1) When a fairly strong, unified army is close to winning a battle against orcs (eg. five armies)
2) If they like you, they might make a precision hit and run rescues/strikes, if it's not too dangerous for them (eg. helping Gandalf)

Eagles aren't total jerks but not nearly as heroic and/or active as elves or men of Gondor. They don't like orcs but ultimately, they have no greater plans against them because they can always fly away if orcs conquer everything. They're still mighty creatures, so a hit and run rescue of Gandalf (and present company) from some treetop is not that big deal for them. Also, it's always nice keep good relations to one of the Maiar. I'm not actually too sure if they would help some random soldier of Gondor or some no-name-elf who was in similar situation.

So, in that light, they would most likely think that flying to Mordor would be a suicide. Sauron would see them approaching at least hundreds of miles away and dispatch the nazgul on fell beasts and orc archers to intercept them. Eagles would do well to stay clear of that place because it's an enemy territory and in a whole different scale than mere Isengard (Orthanc), both in size and quantity and quality of its defenders.

At the end of the battle of the black gates, eagles had (to my knowledge) no way to know that the men of the west were actually close to winning, yet they showed up nonetheless. So, as far as I see this, it was pretty uncharacteristic of the eagles to take actual risks like that.

(Yeah. I really don't like the "eagles solve everything"-theory :smalltongue: )

[Rockphed]

Eagles at the Third Age usually only fly to aid other free peoples in two broad scenarios:
1) When a fairly strong, unified army is close to winning a battle against orcs (eg. five armies)
2) If they like you, they might make a precision hit and run rescues/strikes, if it's not too dangerous for them (eg. helping Gandalf)

Eagles aren't total jerks but not nearly as heroic and/or active as elves or men of Gondor. They don't like orcs but ultimately, they have no greater plans against them because they can always fly away if orcs conquer everything. They're still mighty creatures, so a hit and run rescue of Gandalf (and present company) from some treetop is not that big deal for them. Also, it's always nice keep good relations to one of the Maiar. I'm not actually too sure if they would help some random soldier of Gondor or some no-name-elf who was in similar situation.

So, in that light, they would most likely think that flying to Mordor would be a suicide. Sauron would see them approaching at least hundreds of miles away and dispatch the nazgul on fell beasts and orc archers to intercept them. Eagles would do well to stay clear of that place because it's an enemy territory and in a whole different scale than mere Isengard (Orthanc), both in size and quantity and quality of its defenders.

At the end of the battle of the black gates, eagles had (to my knowledge) no way to know that the men of the west were actually close to winning, yet they showed up nonetheless. So, as far as I see this, it was pretty uncharacteristic of the eagles to take actual risks like that.

(Yeah. I really don't like the "eagles solve everything"-theory :smalltongue: )

Eagles have eyes keen to see that which is far off. Is it so impossible to you that they saw that Gandalf would need a lift before Gollum started his prancing? Alternatively, they were intending to save Gandalf, eat some orc-flesh, and be gone before anything that could actually bother them got close enough to cause problems. Come on, it will be fun!

[Eldariel]

The German translator worked together with Tolkien, who obviously had some idea of German, too. He also convinced them not to use the more common GErman word "elf" and go for "elb" instead, to avoid some of the connotations. (A lot of people still think "tiny flower pixie" when they hear elf.)

Hm, I see. I suppose that's a worthy endeavor then. Read it first in English, then German, then Finnish and savor the differences. Though I might as skip Finnish as the translation never struck me as overtly inspiring. Now that I think about it, part of the reason Tolkien himself might've opted against "thou"/"you" is that "thou" is historically the informal form so as a linguist he might've felt he'd been forced to write every character using "thou" by default throughout the books and only used "you" in situations where formal speech was invoked. Of course, in modern use the two seem to have almost switched places - I've mostly encountered thou as an elevated/high-class form used as a tool of distinction in some prose.


Eagles have eyes keen to see that which is far off. Is it so impossible to you that they saw that Gandalf would need a lift before Gollum started his prancing? Alternatively, they were intending to save Gandalf, eat some orc-flesh, and be gone before anything that could actually bother them got close enough to cause problems. Come on, it will be fun!

In the books, Radagast had them help out Gandalf I believe.

[veti]

Now that I think about it, part of the reason Tolkien himself might've opted against "thou"/"you" is that "thou" is historically the informal form so as a linguist he might've felt he'd been forced to write every character using "thou" by default throughout the books and only used "you" in situations where formal speech was invoked.

I don't know, but I speculate that he felt "thou" would be too intrusive, because - outside of a few very limited dialects - it's obsolete in modern English. Using "thou" is just about the least subtle way possible to make your language look archaic, even if the rest of your structure and vocabulary is completely modern. Tolkien wanted to achieve the opposite of that - text that uses many archaic forms, but still reads fluently to modern readers, so that most of the time they don't even notice those archaisms.


Of course, in modern use the two seem to have almost switched places - I've mostly encountered thou as an elevated/high-class form used as a tool of distinction in some prose.

Depending on what prose you're reading... that might be a deliberate literary device (use of archaic language to express more formal addressing), or a mistake out of simple ignorance.

I suspect one source of confusion is that the place many modern English speakers are most likely to encounter "thou" is in church, where those forms are often used (in many traditional hymns, for instance) to address God. In that context, it's easy to pick up the misleading idea that it's a more formal term expressing respect or deference - rather than, as the hymns' original authors presumably intended, a familiar term implying intimacy.

[factotum]

In the books, Radagast had them help out Gandalf I believe.

Sort of--Radagast sends an eagle as a messenger to Gandalf to tell him what he's learned; said eagle finds Gandalf on the pinnacle of Orthanc and carries him away. (Hence the eagle telling Gandalf, "I was sent to bear messages, not burdens" when asked how far he can carry him).

[Aotrs Commander]

It's two g's in the book, both for what Sam wants to smoke and the wood Boromir wants for a fire.

The book I'm reading at least, if it's different based on printing.

Well, I did only look it up on the first google search result dictionary, so it clearly is spelled differently in other sources (or perhaps on different sides of the pond).

[WalkingTarget]

I read the books a lot of years ago, when I was 13 or so (also, in Spanish), and I don't remember much. But I do remember thinking that Tom Bombadil was out of place, like he made no sense to the story and was there just to prove some sort of point. I probably should re-read them... But, well, now I'm curious: what is the reason for Tom Bombadil to be there? Why is it so important?

He's there to represent a limit on the Ring's reach. A lot of people see that Tom is able to wear the Ring without becoming invisible, is able to do a trick where it looks like he turns the Ring invisible, and is able to handle it and then give it back to Frodo as if it were nothing.

A lot of people take this to show that Tom is very "powerful", whatever that means; that it proves that he's someone mighty, but lazy or somehow deficient in morals that he refuses to help with the Quest with the world on the line (or would refuse to do so if asked, or at least would be a terrible custodian of the Ring).

Tolkien instead points out that Tom is rather an entity that has rejected Power and Control, and since this is what the Ring has to offer to people, he sees it as no more than a pretty trinket. Tolkien compares this situation to both a "vow of poverty" and to "pacifism". The Ring offers those who desire it everything they could possibly desire, but Tom has all that he wants already and even though he has some great degree of knowledge of "his country", which he will not leave, he doesn't work to change it. An example is Old Man Willow - Tom knows how to get him to stop acting up, but he never puts any effort into "reforming" the willow's character permanently.

Great, so Tom represents a loophole in the Ring's effectiveness, but what good does that do? At the Council of Elrond it's pointed out that if they were to hide the Ring with Tom, he'd simply be the last to fall, but fall he would all the same. In the letter, Tolkien says that pacifism is a natural, even possibly laudable, reaction to war, but if you're faced with somebody like Sauron who is bent on conquest there's no way for pacifists to exist without there being those who are willing to fight on their behalf.

Beyond that, though, we see a bit of foreshadowing for later. The only specific temptation that we see from a Ring-bearer's perspective is Sam's. It tempts him with a vision of Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age. He could conquer Mordor and have it turned into a vast garden. However, the Ring overshoots the mark. Sam doesn't want to have vast fields tilled by slaves, all he wants is to go home and tend his own small garden with his own hands. The Ring doesn't know how to tempt somebody with such small desires. That is why Hobbits are such good caretakers of the Ring. There's nothing supernatural about it (it's doubtful that many normal people could be as lacking in ambition as Tom Bomadil), they've just got good old-fashioned "Hobbit sense" that allows Sam to see the Ring's vision for the lie that it is.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't think Pex talking about the word "gay" (though what you say is true); I suspect he means the word "fagot" (i.e. a bundle of sticks used for burning; which is NOT, by-the-by, the same spelling as the homosexual derogartive, which has an additional "g" (thank you dictionary.com!) and/or the three-letter shortened version of same. (Which as stated, at least in this part of the country, is most often contextually used as slang for cigarette "as in, I'm going out for a [word]" or "fagpacket calculation" (meaning a rough order of magnitude calculation (as might be written on whatever one had to hand, e.g. a packet of cigarettes.))

I've never seen the one g spelling for anything. Either the bundle of sticks or the meatball type thing.

[Maelstrom]

Fagot is french for a bundle of sticks (or really just a bundle)

[Eldan]

Hm, I see. I suppose that's a worthy endeavor then. Read it first in English, then German, then Finnish and savor the differences. Though I might as skip Finnish as the translation never struck me as overtly inspiring. Now that I think about it, part of the reason Tolkien himself might've opted against "thou"/"you" is that "thou" is historically the informal form so as a linguist he might've felt he'd been forced to write every character using "thou" by default throughout the books and only used "you" in situations where formal speech was invoked. Of course, in modern use the two seem to have almost switched places - I've mostly encountered thou as an elevated/high-class form used as a tool of distinction in some prose.

Make sure you get the right translation. The one I had was, I think, from the sixties or seventies. I'm told there's newer translations that modernize the language. Which is entirely missing the point.

[Yora]

Everyone seems to hate those.

Though I have stopped to care, since I now see no reason to read it in anything but English.

[Eldan]

Certainly. But I have a certain love for the giant, heavy, red tome I inherited from my mother when I was 12.

[Pex]

Well, I did only look it up on the first google search result dictionary, so it clearly is spelled differently in other sources (or perhaps on different sides of the pond).

Wouldn't be the first time British and American words having different spellings. I'm more surprised, but not disapproving, the publisher didn't change the word. "Kindling" for the wood and a capitalized "Smoke" for Sam would have worked just as well, and I wouldn't have known it was done. Considering the subject hasn't been brought up before it's possible people (Americans) in general aren't even aware the word is used. I'm certain a big stink of it would have been made at some point.

[McStabbington]

He's there to represent a limit on the Ring's reach. A lot of people see that Tom is able to wear the Ring without becoming invisible, is able to do a trick where it looks like he turns the Ring invisible, and is able to handle it and then give it back to Frodo as if it were nothing.

A lot of people take this to show that Tom is very "powerful", whatever that means; that it proves that he's someone mighty, but lazy or somehow deficient in morals that he refuses to help with the Quest with the world on the line (or would refuse to do so if asked, or at least would be a terrible custodian of the Ring).

Tolkien instead points out that Tom is rather an entity that has rejected Power and Control, and since this is what the Ring has to offer to people, he sees it as no more than a pretty trinket. Tolkien compares this situation to both a "vow of poverty" and to "pacifism". The Ring offers those who desire it everything they could possibly desire, but Tom has all that he wants already and even though he has some great degree of knowledge of "his country", which he will not leave, he doesn't work to change it. An example is Old Man Willow - Tom knows how to get him to stop acting up, but he never puts any effort into "reforming" the willow's character permanently.

Great, so Tom represents a loophole in the Ring's effectiveness, but what good does that do? At the Council of Elrond it's pointed out that if they were to hide the Ring with Tom, he'd simply be the last to fall, but fall he would all the same. In the letter, Tolkien says that pacifism is a natural, even possibly laudable, reaction to war, but if you're faced with somebody like Sauron who is bent on conquest there's no way for pacifists to exist without there being those who are willing to fight on their behalf.

Beyond that, though, we see a bit of foreshadowing for later. The only specific temptation that we see from a Ring-bearer's perspective is Sam's. It tempts him with a vision of Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age. He could conquer Mordor and have it turned into a vast garden. However, the Ring overshoots the mark. Sam doesn't want to have vast fields tilled by slaves, all he wants is to go home and tend his own small garden with his own hands. The Ring doesn't know how to tempt somebody with such small desires. That is why Hobbits are such good caretakers of the Ring. There's nothing supernatural about it (it's doubtful that many normal people could be as lacking in ambition as Tom Bomadil), they've just got good old-fashioned "Hobbit sense" that allows Sam to see the Ring's vision for the lie that it is.

That is a very well-argued point that does put the case for Tom about as strongly as can be put. And mind you, I do say this as someone who has defended Tom's place in the book before.

That being said, it's also important to note that as a matter of narrative logic, the entire growing head of tension and steam that the story has gets derailed during the Bombadil chapters. So while Bombadil from a literary point is a fascinating character for all the reasons that you point out, it's also I think equally fair to say that he was nevertheless a bad fit for this particular story where the entire fate of the Free World depends on four small hobbits getting the Ring of Power to Rivendell on their own, and while I like Tom and agree with everything you said, I can also easily understand why, for instance, the movies jettison him as fast as possible and just skip to Bree.

[Raimun]

Eagles have eyes keen to see that which is far off. Is it so impossible to you that they saw that Gandalf would need a lift before Gollum started his prancing? Alternatively, they were intending to save Gandalf, eat some orc-flesh, and be gone before anything that could actually bother them got close enough to cause problems. Come on, it will be fun!

I can see that and it's entirely possible, as far as my knowledge of the eagles is concerned. I can see Gandalf shooing them away and being all like: "Fly you feathered fools! I'm not withdrawing! We are doing this!" But of course, no one was able to record this to the Red Book in the chaos of that battle. :smallbiggrin:

Then again, I can also see that they somehow knew (deduced themselves or someone like Radagast told them) that the battle for the Age was fought right now. I don't think they missed the Battle of Pelennor Fields with their eagle eyes, so they might have had a change of heart, because they are not total jerks and one of them reminded them all of their lord Manwë... but convienently didn't remind them of how inactive the man generally is.

[warty goblin]

That is a very well-argued point that does put the case for Tom about as strongly as can be put. And mind you, I do say this as someone who has defended Tom's place in the book before.

That being said, it's also important to note that as a matter of narrative logic, the entire growing head of tension and steam that the story has gets derailed during the Bombadil chapters. So while Bombadil from a literary point is a fascinating character for all the reasons that you point out, it's also I think equally fair to say that he was nevertheless a bad fit for this particular story where the entire fate of the Free World depends on four small hobbits getting the Ring of Power to Rivendell on their own, and while I like Tom and agree with everything you said, I can also easily understand why, for instance, the movies jettison him as fast as possible and just skip to Bree.

I'd argue that Tom actually fits the larger structure of LoTR, which isn't one of constantly rising pressure, so much as it is of rising pressure followed by release. The escape from the Shire and the Old Forest are rising tension, which Tom then releases, and at the same time deepens our understanding of the world by giving us some history. The tension then escalates all the way to Rivendell - with the attack on the Prancing Pony increasing the sense of danger even further by denying promised safety - but Rivendell again releases that tension, and provides even more detailed history. This pattern is repeated when passing through Moria and the sojourn in Lothlorien; with the pause again serving to inform the audience and characters about the world, while easing off the immediate will-they-survive pressure of the more perilous adventure chapters. For Frodo and Sam, the pattern repeats itself again with growing danger until they meet Faramir, who provides a temporary respite, but again removes briefly the risk of instantaneous ruin. The structure is finally subverted for the passage of Mordor, where there is no respite. This is one reason I think that the Mordor chapters are so hideous to read; the entire narrative up to this point has trained the audience to expect that Frodo and Sam get a break after Cirith Ungol. Instead they get the plains of Gorgoroth.

This seems rather an odd structure at first, but I think it works extremely well. The 'relax' phases keeps the story from having to continuously escalate the peril scenes out of any degree of reasonableness, and I think act to increase the long-run tension very effectively. These pauses all occur at places that are extremely pleasant, and all deepen the audience's (and the characters') understanding of the world, which makes the threat of Sauron that much more terrible. We don't want to see Lothlorien or Tom Bombadil's house destroyed, because both are beautiful and peaceful, and by pausing there the story lets both the audience and characters experience that.

All of which accomplishes something that I think is really rather unique in fantasy; we care about the fate of the world. Not about the fate of characters within the world (who, having to live there, care about the world) but about Middle Earth as a thing in its own right. I can't really think of another series that pulls this trick off quite so well; and it is exactly this caring for Middle Earth that I think makes the final chapters so marvelously tragic. That Frodo cannot stay in Middle Earth hurts, precisely because it is a place we value and want to stay ourselves, and because we understand what has been sacrificed to preserve a thing we cannot ourselves have.

The end of Return of the King is one of the few books that always and inevitably leaves me in tears; I'm tearing up just writing this post and thinking about it. I must be due to reread it soon now.

[Yora]

I think it also has partially the function to show that even though the situation is grim and the threat dire, not everything is terrible yet. And as bleak as it still gets, there is still plenty of Good in the world and if they manage to destroy the world they will not be left with a desolate wasteland. The difference they will be making is between a good future and a bad future. Not between a bad future and a worse future.

[veti]

I'd argue that Tom actually fits the larger structure of LoTR, which isn't one of constantly rising pressure, so much as it is of rising pressure followed by release.

True, and I thank you for your insightful analysis, particularly with reference to the journey into Mordor.

But Tom - isn't necessary, to fit that pattern. The hobbits could escape more or less under their own aegis, as they did from the danger of the Nazgul in the Shire, and find safety in Bree. Or they could be rescued by regular Men, if the goal is to show how small and powerless they really are at this point, and again find safety in Bree. These options would fit the pattern just as well, without needing to introduce the gargantuan complication that is Bombadil.

Personally, I'm of the faction that quite likes Old Tom. Until he appears, Gandalf's unsupported story is the only account we've had of the Ring and its importance. Bombadil subverts that. To me, he shows that Gandalf's view is not the only one - maybe the Ring isn't as powerful as he's led us to believe, maybe even the War itself isn't the be-all and end-all that's been implied. He shows that it is, at least, possible to take another view.

Is Bombadil mooching off the protection of those who are fighting? That seems to be Elrond's and Gandalf's opinion. But they're not sure, and even if they were, they're not infallible.

I like that little seed of doubt.

[factotum]

I'm not a big fan of Bombadil myself, but his section of the book does contain one of its high points, IMHO--the incident on the Barrow-downs. A lot of out-and-out ghost stories could learn how to be creepy from that bit! The Paths of the Dead section probably even more so, thinking about it.

[FoolManChu]

I . . . have never read the books before. I got the trilogy and The Hobbit via secret santa. I finished Hobbit and now reading Fellowship of the Ring.

I'm glad I finally know who Tom Bombadil is. I kept seeing the character brought up whenever the story is discussed and never had a clue what anyone was talking about.

People often say that the story influenced D&D. Even the writers of the game say so. I accepted their word, but even after seeing the movies (including the famous cartoon and Return of the King cartoon) I didn't fully grasp the concept. OMG do I get it now. Bear Warriors. Wood elves. Spiders. Rangers. Halflings. Elves journey to elsewhere. Everything. Now I truly understand why this story is so beloved by Geekdom.

The Eagles joke doesn't work. Even though the book doesn't literally say the Eagles cannot fly Frodo to Mt. Doom, it is explained why it couldn't be done. Sauron did have spies everywhere, including a large flock of crows and hawks. The Fellowship had to remain hidden. The Eagles flying Frodo would have announced "Here I Am Come Get Me!". Loophole filled. :smallsmile:

Welcome to the land of milk and honey.

[Ravens_cry]

One problem with the Eagles theory, is it's highly noticeable (a flock of giant eagles flying outside their usual haunts would be sure to draw attention) and Team Sauron had interceptors, Nazgûl on fellbeasts, and arrows and ballista at lower altitudes, and who knows what else. It's just too risky. And the whole idea that Gandalf's "Fly, you fools!" referred to Eagles is absurd. Fly, obviously, means run as well as, well, fly. If he meant Eagles, he could have said, with less one less syllable, "Eagles!" With the same syllables, he could have said, "Find Eagles!"

[veti]

One problem with the Eagles theory, is it's highly noticeable (a flock of giant eagles flying outside their usual haunts would be sure to draw attention) and Team Sauron had interceptors, Nazgûl on fellbeasts, and arrows and ballista at lower altitudes, and who knows what else. It's just too risky.

While I mostly agree with you, and have had zero patience with the "eagles" idea ever since I first heard it (on the Internet, naturally) - I feel bound to point out that the "fell beasts" were unknown to the good guys at this time. They were never seen outside Mordor until after the Nazgul were unhorsed at the Ford of Bruinen, which was only a week or so before the Council of Elrond. The Fellowship saw their first one after leaving Lothlorien, well after Moria; the Rohirrim, and Faramir, both of whom mention them, talk of them as something quite new.

To me, the reasons for not taking eagles can be summed up as (1) why would you put the Ring within the direct power of such a powerful and uncontrollable being? If Gandalf and Galadriel and Elrond couldn't be trusted with it, why would an eagle be any better? - and (2) more importantly, eagles don't take orders. Not from anyone.


And the whole idea that Gandalf's "Fly, you fools!" referred to Eagles is absurd.

... And that particular twist of silliness is an idea I'd never even encountered before. I think a few more brain cells just died.

[The_Snark]

To me, the reasons for not taking eagles can be summed up as (1) why would you put the Ring within the direct power of such a powerful and uncontrollable being? If Gandalf and Galadriel and Elrond couldn't be trusted with it, why would an eagle be any better? - and (2) more importantly, eagles don't take orders. Not from anyone.

There's also communication difficulties to consider: in the movies Gandalf sends a moth as a messenger to Gwaihir, but in the books nothing of the sort ever happens. They can't just summon the eagles, they'd have to wait and hope one decides to show up - not a great idea. Or try to signal them somehow, I suppose, but I'm not sure how they'd do that. I guess they could set a forest on fire, or pick a fight with an enormous army of orcs...? But neither of those is reliable, it's just stuff they've showed up to in the past.

[Aotrs Commander]

While HiSHE is perhaps partly responsible for popularising the "eagles solve everything" running gag, one of their contemporaries in te BrotherhoodWorkshop has an equally good rebuttal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZrJPiq9QGM)...

[Thrudd]

My theory about the Eagles and why they don't act more reliably has to do with theology. Based on the Silmarillion, it seems that Eagles are the symbols and heralds of Manwe. Notice, the only people who even seem to know they exist or interact with them directly are the Wizards. They show up to help when a wizard is involved, and while they carry dwarves and hobbits and fight in battles, it is only at the behest of a wizard. Or the Powers to which the Wizards are beholden. They seem to operate more as angelic beings, heralds and last-minute saviors that enact Manwe's will when all other recourse is exhausted. While they clearly are physical beings living in middle earth, their participation in matters of import, I suspect, only comes by the direction and allowance of Manwe, who sees farther than all others and knows the mind of Illuvatar better than all others. Just as the Wizards have their prime directives, so to do the Eagles, I imagine.

After the Morannon in Return of the King, this cannot be more obvious, as an Eagle flies to Minas Tirith crying as a herald bringing news of victory for the free people. The Angel symbolism doesn't get more obvious than that. Since nothing Tolkien wrote was meant as allegory (according to him), this implies to me that the Eagles aren't just angelic symbols in his story, they are actually angelic beings, just of a different sort with different rules than the Istari.

This being the case, the councils of the wise would clearly not have included divine intervention as part of their strategy for dealing with Sauron (beyond what the Istari were already allowed and capable of doing).

When they show up in the end, it evokes in me a feeling that this is a moment of real victory. Even though the battle may still be going on and seems far from won, the Eagle's appearance means that the people have literally done everything they can, and in approval and with mercy, God now lends a hand. When they show up, it means you can let go of doubt and fear, because this is what is supposed to happen. Even when you're being crushed under a dead Troll, "The Eagles are Coming!" Is a cry of victory.

Again, the hints to Tolkiens intent behind this as well as the Elbereth hymn and Galadriel's gift are found in his writing which later became the Ainulindale in the Silmarillion. Those little hints, about Manwe seeing all and Eagles his messengers and Varda hearing all and her connection to starlight, are meant to give more depth to the events of the stories he had written earlier (or concurrently).

Therefore, criticisms of the Eagles being a plot hole in the story are nullified by a more complete understanding of the workings of middle earth. Or maybe the Ainulindale was written in order to close up that big gaping plot hole. Either way, it was written and plot hole successfully closed.

[Wardog]

I think it also has partially the function to show that even though the situation is grim and the threat dire, not everything is terrible yet. And as bleak as it still gets, there is still plenty of Good in the world and if they manage to destroy the world they will not be left with a desolate wasteland. The difference they will be making is between a good future and a bad future. Not between a bad future and a worse future.

I think another function of Bombadil (and that section of the story) is to show that thw world is so much bigger than the hobbits, and even their mission.

The first time I read LotR, I thought it was a bit unnecessary, and broke the flow, so the second time I read it, I skipped that whole section. It wasn't until a subsequent reading (when I decided to read Bombadil as well) that I realised what a difference it makes to the tone of the story and the presentation of the world.

[Bobblit]

He's there to represent a limit on the Ring's reach. A lot of people see that Tom is able to wear the Ring without becoming invisible, is able to do a trick where it looks like he turns the Ring invisible, and is able to handle it and then give it back to Frodo as if it were nothing.

A lot of people take this to show that Tom is very "powerful", whatever that means; that it proves that he's someone mighty, but lazy or somehow deficient in morals that he refuses to help with the Quest with the world on the line (or would refuse to do so if asked, or at least would be a terrible custodian of the Ring).

Tolkien instead points out that Tom is rather an entity that has rejected Power and Control, and since this is what the Ring has to offer to people, he sees it as no more than a pretty trinket. Tolkien compares this situation to both a "vow of poverty" and to "pacifism". The Ring offers those who desire it everything they could possibly desire, but Tom has all that he wants already and even though he has some great degree of knowledge of "his country", which he will not leave, he doesn't work to change it. An example is Old Man Willow - Tom knows how to get him to stop acting up, but he never puts any effort into "reforming" the willow's character permanently.

Great, so Tom represents a loophole in the Ring's effectiveness, but what good does that do? At the Council of Elrond it's pointed out that if they were to hide the Ring with Tom, he'd simply be the last to fall, but fall he would all the same. In the letter, Tolkien says that pacifism is a natural, even possibly laudable, reaction to war, but if you're faced with somebody like Sauron who is bent on conquest there's no way for pacifists to exist without there being those who are willing to fight on their behalf.

Beyond that, though, we see a bit of foreshadowing for later. The only specific temptation that we see from a Ring-bearer's perspective is Sam's. It tempts him with a vision of Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age. He could conquer Mordor and have it turned into a vast garden. However, the Ring overshoots the mark. Sam doesn't want to have vast fields tilled by slaves, all he wants is to go home and tend his own small garden with his own hands. The Ring doesn't know how to tempt somebody with such small desires. That is why Hobbits are such good caretakers of the Ring. There's nothing supernatural about it (it's doubtful that many normal people could be as lacking in ambition as Tom Bomadil), they've just got good old-fashioned "Hobbit sense" that allows Sam to see the Ring's vision for the lie that it is.
Thank you for the explanation! It makes a lot of sense, actually (and sounds like there are even a lot more of hidden meanings behind Tom Bombadil's role... which is quite Tolkienesque, I think). I really need to re-read those books now, and see by myself how it fits into the narrative.


I think another function of Bombadil (and that section of the story) is to show that thw world is so much bigger than the hobbits, and even their mission.

The first time I read LotR, I thought it was a bit unnecessary, and broke the flow, so the second time I read it, I skipped that whole section. It wasn't until a subsequent reading (when I decided to read Bombadil as well) that I realised what a difference it makes to the tone of the story and the presentation of the world.
That could actually be a good excercise, reading the books first without Bombadil and then with him (although that may be confusing later when he's referenced) and seeing what difference it makes. I might give this a try.

[ENDRNL]

Good for you! Continue reading, and the next time you're in a book shop, search for more Tolkien, like the Silmarillion! It's a really old and interesting book.

[Ravens_cry]

Good for you! Continue reading, and the next time you're in a book shop, search for more Tolkien, like the Silmarillion! It's a really old and interesting book.
'The Tolkien Reader' is well worth reading, both for its fiction ('Farmer Giles of Ham' is a hoot on multiple levels) its non-fiction ('On Fairy-Stories' is thought provoking at least) and the translations show his love and care with languages. I can't speak for his accuracy, but I can for the beauty and feel of his translations.
Pauline Baynes, who also did the illustrations for the 'Chronicles of Narnia', does her masterfully pseudo-medieval miniature style.

[Lethologica]

That is a very well-argued point that does put the case for Tom about as strongly as can be put. And mind you, I do say this as someone who has defended Tom's place in the book before.

That being said, it's also important to note that as a matter of narrative logic, the entire growing head of tension and steam that the story has gets derailed during the Bombadil chapters. So while Bombadil from a literary point is a fascinating character for all the reasons that you point out, it's also I think equally fair to say that he was nevertheless a bad fit for this particular story where the entire fate of the Free World depends on four small hobbits getting the Ring of Power to Rivendell on their own, and while I like Tom and agree with everything you said, I can also easily understand why, for instance, the movies jettison him as fast as possible and just skip to Bree.
The movies jettisoning Bombadil is in large part an artifact of their being movies, and therefore having demanding pacing requirements peculiar to that medium. A LotR miniseries would not be under nearly as much pressure to cut Bombadil. LotR happens to lend itself well to movie pacing, but...well, the material that became a more recent Jackson film trilogy was probably better off in a TV format.

[WalkingTarget]

The movies jettisoning Bombadil is in large part an artifact of their being movies, and therefore having demanding pacing requirements peculiar to that medium. A LotR miniseries would not be under nearly as much pressure to cut Bombadil. LotR happens to lend itself well to movie pacing, but...well, the material that became a more recent Jackson film trilogy was probably better off in a TV format.

Additionally, since the major portion of Bombadil's importance is in theme, changes to that theme render him even more irrelevant to the narrative.

The filmmakers were setting up the Ring as this all-powerful, nigh-irresistible thing. It would undercut that specific goal to introduce a character, especially so early in the journey, who was immune to its influence. This has a knock-on effect on how they chose to portray Faramir and his interactions with Frodo - another character who, knowing the Ring of the Enemy was within his grasp, just lets it go (having never actually seen it in the book) without any struggle, even less than Galadriel who at least got a weird SFX-laden freak out about it.

[Sapphire Guard]

Funny thing about LOTR is, a lot of the fantasy cliches that people think emanated from it...aren't actually in it.



It's 'middle aged landowner chooses to take on a quest', not 'random farm boy gets dragged in'. Using the powerful magical artifact he owns against the Dark Lord is the absolute last thing anyone should do, the big military engagements aren't actually pivotal to the defeat of the dark lord. There's no direct combat against him at all. And the heroes go home with physical and mental scars from their journey.
And the only romances that hasn't already been years in the making was Eowyn/Faramir.




Eagles weren't used for the same reason they didn't bring the Ents. They decide where they go, you can't summon them to do your bidding, and they don't really care if Minas Tirith stands or falls.

Even if they did, Sauron would notice. He almost saw Frodo on Amon Hen, and nearly 'broke' him by briefly glancing in his general direction.

[Seppl]

Funny thing about LOTR is, a lot of the fantasy cliches that people think emanated from it...aren't actually in it.



It's 'middle aged landowner chooses to take on a quest', not 'random farm boy gets dragged in'. Using the powerful magical artifact he owns against the Dark Lord is the absolute last thing anyone should do, the big military engagements aren't actually pivotal to the defeat of the dark lord. There's no direct combat against him at all. And the heroes go home with physical and mental scars from their journey.
And the only romances that hasn't already been years in the making was Eowyn/Faramir.

It introduced/popularized far more basic tropes. LOTR started many of the common worldbuilding tropes (and the whole process of worldbuilding itself!). Other authors then began to tell "teenage boy on an adventure!" stories in worlds such as his. Examples include: A world with different races. Elves and all the attributes typically associated with them. Same for dwarves, halflings (hobbits), orcs and even men. A dark lord. Magic and wizards. Languages! A map! I cannot list them all. So many places and cultures typically found in fantasy literature have their roots in Tolkien's works.

[Eldariel]

It introduced/popularized far more basic tropes. LOTR started many of the common worldbuilding tropes (and the whole process of worldbuilding itself!). Other authors then began to tell "teenage boy on an adventure!" stories in worlds such as his. Examples include: A world with different races. Elves and all the attributes typically associated with them. Same for dwarves, halflings (hobbits), orcs and even men. A dark lord. Magic and wizards. Languages! A map! I cannot list them all. So many places and cultures typically found in fantasy literature have their roots in Tolkien's works.

One huge thing is that Tolkien basically defined what many people understand with "elf", "dwarf", "orc", "ent", "goblin" or "hobbit" nowadays. If we delve deeper into English, an elf is by no means automatically a fair, ageless humanoid. Dwarves, orcs, goblins, halflings and treants have similarly many referents but Tolkien created a prototype for the referent generally used nowadays (some have been colored since then by contemporary books and games, of course; pointy elven ears, dwarven beercraft, orcish noble brute barbarianism, more cunning, unsavory and less simple, trusty halflings, etc. - D&D races are fine examples).

[Eldan]

And of course, a lot of them took on the most clichéd form. Gimli has a beard and an axe, so all dwarves have beards and axes. Legolas is a king's son with a bow, so all elves are noblemen with bows. Bilbo is hired as a reluctant burglar, so halflings have rogue as their favourite class.

[nyjastul69]

And of course, a lot of them took on the most clichéd form. Gimli has a beard and an axe, so all dwarves have beards and axes. Legolas is a king's son with a bow, so all elves are noblemen with bows. Bilbo is hired as a reluctant burglar, so halflings have rogue as their favourite class.

Did they take on clichéd forms, or did they create cliched forms?

[hamlet]

Did they take on clichéd forms, or did they create cliched forms?

In a roundabout way, actually. Especially when one considers that the average Hobbit wanted nothing at all to do with adventure or burglary, and all the sudden all halflings are thieves. Elves, as an image, have schizophrenia, unsure whether to fill in the frolicsome forest dwellers or the terrifying awe inspiring grey elves who built the greatest magical wonders of the world.

If he were around today, I'm sure that Tolkien would be among the first to say folks shouldn't attempt to copy his work, especially when they don't understand it, and just create their own material instead.

[Pex]

Just finished Fellowship.

The movies (Tim Burton's Peter Jackson's and cartoon) do not do Merry and Pippin justice. The movies portray them as irresponsible troublemakers. They are only friends with Frodo because the movies say so. They're there as comic relief contributing nothing and then get captured by orcs and need saving. If this was a Zombie Apocalypse I'd call them Stupids (See Walking Dead thread.) They grow in character in the later Burton Jackson movies. I had never liked them because I don't care for that caricature stereotype. They are the opposite in the actual book. Their friendship is True. They contribute and provide meaning to be there. I actually cared about what they had to say and what they did. Their capture by orcs hurts. Reading The Two Towers I'm saddened Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli failed to catch them by the time the Riders of Rohan showed up (where I'm up to now).

I am a little bothered Gandalf is like a Mary Sue. Everyone adores him, and when he's gone they doubt themselves about almost everything. I don't hate the character, but I'm not feeling the same level of adulation as the story says I should have. Legolas, I'm pleased to say, is not the Mary Sue the Burton movies portray him as. He has his prowess with bow, movement, and sight, which is fine, but he's not the absolute best in everything save for Gandalf. He gives counsel and listens to counsel. He's a good friend and party member I'd be glad to have around in a game.

Strider, Aragorn, is a Really Nice Guy.

[The Glyphstone]

Do you mean Peter Jackson? I've never heard of Tim Burton producing a LotR movie of any kind, though I'm sure they would be incredibly surreal experiences.

[Ravens_cry]

Do you mean Peter Jackson? I've never heard of Tim Burton producing a LotR movie of any kind, though I'm sure they would be incredibly surreal experiences.
Everyone would be played by Johnny Depp. Even the ladies. Especially the ladies, though you would not be able to tell.
And I wouldn't call Gandalf a Mary Sue as such. He's a powerful being constrained by his duty. He's there to help the people of Middle Earth in times of trouble, but he's not there to steal the show and do everything.
"Help them help themselves" could sum it up.
Of all the Istari, AKA, Wizards, he's the only one who truly cleaved to his duty in the end. The two blue wizards went off and did something in the East (though later writings suggest whatever they did was successful), Saruman, obviously, fell, and Radagast, though certainly doing his level best to help the birds and animals of Middle Earth, wasn't helping people so much.

[McStabbington]

Do you mean Peter Jackson? I've never heard of Tim Burton producing a LotR movie of any kind, though I'm sure they would be incredibly surreal experiences.

"Why are all the hobbits moping about the loss of their fathers? And why do all the orcs have scissors for fingers?!"

[ThePhantom]

As for why people keep doubting themselves when Grandalf leaves, its a nature of the magic of middle-earth. Yes there is sometimes the flashier stuff, but most of the magic is focused on what could be described as moral. The Nagzul are mostly about causing fear into people, the one ring is focused on control, and therefore Grandalf focuses on more on inspiring people to counteract. He keeps away the despair and fear that Saruon wields and when he's not around it can creep back in.

[Pex]

Do you mean Peter Jackson? I've never heard of Tim Burton producing a LotR movie of any kind, though I'm sure they would be incredibly surreal experiences.

D'oh!

Yeah, him.

[Thufir]

Even beyond any amount of inspiring presence his magical capabilities may grant, there's also the simple fact that he was in charge. He was the one with the plan, and once he's gone they suddenly have to figure it out for themselves; on top of which whatever new plan they figure out is made much more difficult by needing to account for the fact they no longer have a wizard on their side.

As for him receiving adulation, I don't recall that much except from the hobbits - who being simple people sheltered from the outside world have that much more extreme reactions to the fantastical stuff found in it - and then in Lothlorien after he fell, at which point obviously they're going to praise him for all the things he did in life. Other than that, I can't think of anything I'd really call adulation or adoration, just the odd comment to the effect of "Well done Gandalf, if it wasn't for you we'd probably be besieged by a huge army of orcs already, or dead."

[Cuthalion]

I appreciate Bombadil's place in the story, as it shows Tolkien's disregard to just make a cliched story. He doesn't explain everything. You're looking at the world the way it is, and it doesn't just conform to make the most interesting story. There's depth beyond the plot, and it doesn't always get explained. I think that's part of what makes it such a great story, because it's real. I appreciate that he gives a more realistic feel to the world, and, yes, not every word in there is plot-important. Personally feel it's a good thing and makes it come more to life to me, at least. You get more of a sense for the world, can imagine it and feel it.

[Ravens_cry]

I appreciate Bombadil's place in the story, as it shows Tolkien's disregard to just make a cliched story. He doesn't explain everything. You're looking at the world the way it is, and it doesn't just conform to make the most interesting story. There's depth beyond the plot, and it doesn't always get explained. I think that's part of what makes it such a great story, because it's real. I appreciate that he gives a more realistic feel to the world, and, yes, not every word in there is plot-important. Personally feel it's a good thing and makes it come more to life to me, at least. You get more of a sense for the world, can imagine it and feel it.
A lot, though not all, does get explain in the The Similarion. And that is so what I love about it. It's more than just a set built around the action, with maybe some throw away lines to give an illusion of depth, it has actual depth; there is a world, rich in untold stories and fragmented tales there, far larger than the frame that surrounds the picture. Elves aren't just cautious and passive because elves are cautious and passive, but because they did a lot of foolish stuff in the past, and what they have is hard won wisdom of lives literally thousands of years old. The world of Middle Earth can truly be called a world, and if the story sometimes suffers for it, it nonetheless is a masterpiece of Sub-Creation, as Tolkien called it.

[Cuthalion]

A lot, though not all, does get explain in the The Similarion. And that is so what I love about it. It's more than just a set built around the action, with maybe some throw away lines to give an illusion of depth, it has actual depth; there is a world, rich in untold stories and fragmented tales there, far larger than the frame that surrounds the picture. Elves aren't just cautious and passive because elves are cautious and passive, but because they did a lot of foolish stuff in the past, and what they have is hard won wisdom of lives literally thousands of years old. The world of Middle Earth can truly be called a world, and if the story sometimes suffers for it, it nonetheless is a masterpiece of Sub-Creation, as Tolkien called it.

Exactly. Tolkien's stories are writings built around a world, rather than worlds built around a story, which I think makes them much more real.

[Eldan]

Just finished Fellowship.

The movies (Tim Burton's Peter Jackson's and cartoon) do not do Merry and Pippin justice. T.

Ah, yes. Merry and Pippin. Personally, I must say I'm most annoyed about Gimli, though. I got so sick of the dwarf jokes.

[SaintRidley]

I don't know, but I speculate that he felt "thou" would be too intrusive, because - outside of a few very limited dialects - it's obsolete in modern English. Using "thou" is just about the least subtle way possible to make your language look archaic, even if the rest of your structure and vocabulary is completely modern. Tolkien wanted to achieve the opposite of that - text that uses many archaic forms, but still reads fluently to modern readers, so that most of the time they don't even notice those archaisms.



Depending on what prose you're reading... that might be a deliberate literary device (use of archaic language to express more formal addressing), or a mistake out of simple ignorance.

I suspect one source of confusion is that the place many modern English speakers are most likely to encounter "thou" is in church, where those forms are often used (in many traditional hymns, for instance) to address God. In that context, it's easy to pick up the misleading idea that it's a more formal term expressing respect or deference - rather than, as the hymns' original authors presumably intended, a familiar term implying intimacy.
Fun fact - the original use of thou in those hymns has nothing to do with formality or intimacy. The T-V distinction was introduced to English after those hymns were first written in the language. Thou is used in its original sense of referring to a singular being (you used to only be plural).

[Eldariel]

Ah, yes. Merry and Pippin. Personally, I must say I'm most annoyed about Gimli, though. I got so sick of the dwarf jokes.

I think Jackson thought the movie lacked a proper comedy character (a role that was, albeit in a different tone, played by Merri/Pippin in the books) due to the screen-time allocation particularly during the Two Towers so they decided to take one of the band of three and turn him into a comic relief as well... A sad state of affairs.

[The New Bruceski]

Good for you! Continue reading, and the next time you're in a book shop, search for more Tolkien, like the Silmarillion! It's a really old and interesting book.

I agree that the Silmarillion is a great story. Heck, it's something like ten great stories. Just be forewarned going in: it's written like a history book. The Bible would actually be a pretty good analogy; you get a lot of characters doing a lot of things, but the narrator keeps a neutral matter-of-fact tone.

If you can get past that, there's excellent stuff in there.

[factotum]

Personally, I must say I'm most annoyed about Gimli, though. I got so sick of the dwarf jokes.

Yes, those were quite annoying...Gimli in the books has a great deal of dignity. As for them needing a comic relief in the films--why? The books didn't need one.

[BannedInSchool]

As for them needing a comic relief in the films--why? The books didn't need one.
I can understand Jackson wanting to lighten the tone periodically for the movie, but I do want to smack him for how he did it. The characters can have some humor among themselves, even black humor, without making a joke out of a character or resorting to slapstick. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I can understand Jackson wanting to lighten the tone periodically for the movie, but I do want to smack him for how he did it. The characters can have some humor among themselves, even black humor, without making a joke out of a character or resorting to slapstick. :smalltongue:
Same with Gimli. Instead of gradually forming a deep bond with Legolas, each learning of the beauties of their respective cultures, and eventually, in what is pointed out as literally a once in the world event, Gimli, a dwarf, went with Legolas to the undying lands, so as not to be parted with his deepest friend, instead of that, he was the clown.
Another thing that bugged was mixing modern sounding original dialogue with Tolkien's lines. Like "An Elf would go underground, where a Dwarf dare not!" and then, in modern idiom, "I'd never hear the end of it."

[dps]

That's one of the big reasons why so many things that appeared first in the Lord of the Rings often seem so terribly cliched. People copied Tolkien a lot, but that copying was almost only purely cosmetic. Tolkien had good narrative reasons for many of the things he included in the story while most immitators just included them without knowing what purpose or context they would have.

I am always ambigous about the book. I don't care about the chracters or the plot, and think it's painfully reactionary in its overall content. But when it comes to execution and presentation, I think Tolkien really did very well and is rarely equaled or exceeded. He didn't do just fiction, but tried to make it feel like myth. And made some really effort to make to give the work a quality, for which the technical term is "numinous". You could call it supernatural or otherworldly, or if you want "spiritual". It mades the attempt to create a sense of magic and wonder. Which is something I am greatly missing in pretty much all recent fantasy writers. Most fantasy I read, even when it's fun, generally feels somewhat banal. Lord of the Rings can be accused of many thing, but I think being banal is not one of them.

And the attention to weather and landscape is an important part of that. It's not just stuff that is there, it's intended to add something relevant to the story as a whole. Same with all the ruins, monuments, and dead kings.

I didn't read either LotR or Dune until after I was out of college, by which time I had read a lot of other Fantasy/SF works. I greatly enjoyed LotR, but I found Dune to be very disappointing. It's really hard for me to explain why, even to myself, since most of what you say about LotR could also apply to Dune.

[McStabbington]

I can understand Jackson wanting to lighten the tone periodically for the movie, but I do want to smack him for how he did it. The characters can have some humor among themselves, even black humor, without making a joke out of a character or resorting to slapstick. :smalltongue:

Just remember that most movies are written to be accessible to viewers who go to 2 or 3 movies a year, and whose tastes run quite unsophisticated (or at least, that's the stereotype). Then remember that before this series, creating a franchise was just not done. It doesn't justify the need to draw characters with one distinguishing characteristic (the sharp-eyed guy, the hero and the short comedic sidekick), but it does explain it.

[factotum]

Just remember that most movies are written to be accessible to viewers who go to 2 or 3 movies a year, and whose tastes run quite unsophisticated

Most movies aren't written to be a trilogy where each instalment is knocking on the door of three hours long, though, so "lowest common denominator" doesn't really apply here, IMHO.

[McStabbington]

Most movies aren't written to be a trilogy where each instalment is knocking on the door of three hours long, though, so "lowest common denominator" doesn't really apply here, IMHO.

If anything, it applies more, because nobody writing or producing those movies at the time had ever seen this done before. They had no idea it could be done at all, so naturally they hewed as conservative and safe as possible where they could.

It's actually not unlike Marvel. Marvel is insanely daring with the intellectual properties that they'll greenlight into films: seriously, I'm pretty sure more people know about Nightwing or Terry McGinnis than know about Ant-Man, but you don't see Warner Bros. lining up a $100 million budget behind either of those IP's. But Marvel nevertheless exerts significant quality control over each and every movie that they make, and they will fire a writer or director who makes creative decisions with the plot or directing that are deemed too risky. As for example, the first director of Ant-Man Edgar Wright.

As a consequence, everybody gets one "tic" to distinguish the characters. Pippin's is that he's kind of dumb; Gimli's that he's short and belligerent about it.

[lt_murgen]

Yes, those were quite annoying...Gimli in the books has a great deal of dignity. As for them needing a comic relief in the films--why? The books didn't need one.

But the books are not visual, and the books really didn't delve into the battle scenes with such great depth as the movies did. Battles are hard to write, but easy to see. You need a pause during the action to allow the audience to breathe and to bring the story back down from the grandeur of 10,000 men clashing to a personal, intimate moment. Almost all war movies recognize this, and have a character pause or light moment in them.

As for Gimli, I don't mind him being used for comic relief, but I thought the way he did it was low. For example, at the start of the Two Towers, you have Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn racing after the orcs. Legolas snarks at Gimli for being slow. He quips back something about dwarves being natuaral sprinters. Lame.

In the Hobbit (novel) it is mentioned that the dwarves from the iron hills marched day and night to the lonely mountain, and arrived havily armored and ready for battle. I would have loved to see that side of the dwarves portrayed- show Gimli carrying a massive pack and a bunch of bags and not even be out of breath. Then when Legolas snarked at him for being slow he could have shot back, "And who's got your food, and waterskins, and spare arrows? Without me, you'd have starved to death by now pretty boy"

Same with going underground- show him unloading the horses and gearing up and saying "Honestly, those two would fall off a precipice without me."

[CWater]

But the books are not visual, and the books really didn't delve into the battle scenes with such great depth as the movies did. Battles are hard to write, but easy to see. You need a pause during the action to allow the audience to breathe and to bring the story back down from the grandeur of 10,000 men clashing to a personal, intimate moment. Almost all war movies recognize this, and have a character pause or light moment in them.

As for Gimli, I don't mind him being used for comic relief, but I thought the way he did it was low. For example, at the start of the Two Towers, you have Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn racing after the orcs. Legolas snarks at Gimli for being slow. He quips back something about dwarves being natuaral sprinters. Lame.

In the Hobbit (novel) it is mentioned that the dwarves from the iron hills marched day and night to the lonely mountain, and arrived havily armored and ready for battle. I would have loved to see that side of the dwarves portrayed- show Gimli carrying a massive pack and a bunch of bags and not even be out of breath. Then when Legolas snarked at him for being slow he could have shot back, "And who's got your food, and waterskins, and spare arrows? Without me, you'd have starved to death by now pretty boy"

Same with going underground- show him unloading the horses and gearing up and saying "Honestly, those two would fall off a precipice without me."

+1 to this.

[factotum]

I agree with everything you say, It_murgen. I probably worded it badly earlier; it's entirely possible for characters to say light-hearted things without themselves being a laughing stock. This happens in the books to a large extent, and it's that they could have used in the movie. Putting all your comic lines in the mouth of a single character, and thereby turning him into a clown, is a really lazy way of handling it.

[GloatingSwine]

A good example is Guardians of the Galaxy. Nobody in that movie is "the comic relief", but they all get their own ways to be funny.

[Yora]

Comic relief character is possibly the worst concept in fiction I've ever seen. Even worse than prophecies and chosen ones.

[The Glyphstone]

On the other hand, it's also an ancient tradition in fiction, back to the Fool at a king's court. Though the Fool also had a serious role to play, by saying truths other people couldn't - the comic relief was also a source of wisdom. That's been lost nowadays.

[Raimun]

Comic relief character is possibly the worst concept in fiction I've ever seen. Even worse than prophecies and chosen ones.

I would say that the kid sidekick is an even worse concept. And worst of all is the comic relief kid sidekick.

[BannedInSchool]

Comic relief character is possibly the worst concept in fiction I've ever seen. Even worse than prophecies and chosen ones.

Oh, I think an individual character could provide humor to the story without the character themselves being a joke, or that being all there is to their character and all they give to the story. For a lot of Seven Samurai the one ex-peasant samurai is basically comic relief, but that's not all he is overall.

[McStabbington]

Oh, I think an individual character could provide humor to the story without the character themselves being a joke, or that being all there is to their character and all they give to the story. For a lot of Seven Samurai the one ex-peasant samurai is basically comic relief, but that's not all he is overall.

Seven Samurai subverted it two ways. One was Kikuchiyo, who was obviously a peasant masquerading as a samurai (even the name Kikuchiyo is a child's name), but who grew over the course of the story to actually be seen as a full-fledged samurai. The other was Heihachi, who was brought into the group specifically because he was cheerful and fun despite being, by his own admission, barely mediocre as a warrior. Heihachi does a lot to knit the peasants and the samurai together, usually by making everyone laugh at Kikuchiyo.

[Ravens_cry]

You can also have lighthearted moments in an otherwise serious work. For example, in Lord of the Rings, the reunion at the Gates of Isengard.

[Yora]

For a lot of Seven Samurai the one ex-peasant samurai is basically comic relief, but that's not all he is overall.

Yeah, and he's also by far the darkest character in the movie.
Not that that has anything to do with Lord of the Rings, though.

[BannedInSchool]

Well I'm saying that I don't think a character that provides much of the humor to a story is only a "Comic Relief Character" if it's done badly. If there is comic relief and it falls mostly on one character, then there you go. They don't have to be poking you in the eye with a stick to qualify, and it's better if they're not, but that doesn't disqualify them from being comic relief if it's done well. Back to PJotR, I'll say again I don't mind too much that PJ put some comic relief in there, but in the words of the Critic, "Good Lord, what did you do to Gimli?" :smallwink:

[Talakeal]

You know, I actually like movie Gimle, he is probably my second favorite member of the fellowship.

I do think the line about dwarves being good at sprinting is a bit much though, as that is clearly the complete opposite about everything we know about dwarves. I almost wonder if that was initially meant as an IC piece of BS that didn't come across as such, like Han Solo's parsecs claim.

[Lethologica]

You know, I actually like movie Gimle, he is probably my second favorite member of the fellowship.

I do think the line about dwarves being good at sprinting is a bit much though, as that is clearly the complete opposite about everything we know about dwarves. I almost wonder if that was initially meant as an IC piece of BS that didn't come across as such, like Han Solo's parsecs claim.
I didn't think that was ambiguous--absolutely it was BS. That only really moves the humor up one level, though--from "haha, dwarves suck at running" to "haha, dwarves suck at running and they know it."