|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:29 pm
This pickled vegetable...J.R.R. Tolkien
And the books there of
Some topics to get conversation started:
So, it seems that whenever you ask someone how they think the books of Lord of the Rings compared to the movie the first thing they always seem to say is "they left out Tom Bombadil!".
I'm curious as to why that is.
Yeah, Bombadil was entertaining and all but he really didn't add anything to the story and I think Peter Jackson was perfectly justified in taking out the three chapters that included him. Really, I think the only reason why Bombadil is so "popular" is because he WASN'T in the movie. Its not so much a preference thing as a status thing.
"I know who Tom Bombadil is, so I must have read the books and the books are hard to read, so if I read them that makes me smart!"
Well, in the books it wasn't Arwen that brought Frodo to Rivendell but Glorfindel. And Haldir and his regiment of elves never showed up to help in the Battle of Helms Deep. How come you never see anyone mentioning them?
...
I love Tolkien's stories, but I gotta say, his narrative can get really annoying at times. He's the type of author who, when describing a person sitting in a chair, they must fist tell you where the chair was maid and by whom, who had sat in it previously, how it got to its present location, etr...
I will never forget the first time I tried reading the LotR trilogy when I got to the scene on Weather Top where Frodo got stabbed. Right in the middle of the action Tolkien stopped and started giving me the history of the blade that was stabbing him.
And in The Hobbit, he interrupts the dwarfs discussion of their plains to tell us an exploit of Bilbo's grandfather (or great-grandfather, they all kinda blend together).
What's your opinion on the writing?
...
And this is a fun one. What small event would you change and how would it effect the story? ... could kick your a** !!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:47 pm
It's gotta be because Tom Bombadil is just so fun, and I have my suspicions that he's actually a Maia keeping check on that part of Middle Earth. To me, Tom Bombadil is the epitome of Tolkien's lighter, funner side. His use of poetry and song makes him endearing. I think that's why so many wish he was there.
You also missed that Arwen never had a vision about having a son with Aragorn, that was never in the actual book. I can understand many of the cuts that were made from the books but adding that? Just didn't seem right to me.
(If it was in there let me know the quote, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't.)
Of all the cuts made though the one that disappoints me the most is skipping out on Saruman taking over the Shire. It just nailed the point home that no one is invulnerable to evil and that everyone needs to take a stand if they want to protect their world against it.
As for the writing, there wasn't much in the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings that bothered me. Those were relatively light reading. Now the Silmarillion, that's another matter entirely. I wouldn't say it's inaccurate to say that it reads just like a Bible and for all intents and purposes IS a fictional bible.
That being said, the scale of the stories being told here is just fantastic. Not only do you have all the back lore behind the current stories we all love, but you get to see a greater overall picture that there's hints to in the other books but is never quite grasped until you actually get through the Silmarillion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:53 pm
This pickled vegetable...I could never get through the Silmarillion. Its still sitting on my bookshelf with a bookmark not even a fourth of the way through it.
I was also a little disappointed by Jackson not including the ravaging of the Shire but I had assumed that he'd meant the vision Galadriel gave Frodo in Lothlorian was meant to cover that. That is, I assumed until the end of RotK when the hobbits returned to the Shire and it was green and beautiful and looked completely un-touched. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:14 pm
I agree with Helica. I read LotR to my younger sister when we were younger, and Tom Bombadil was one of those things that stood out. We used to go around singing 'Ol' Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.' I missed him being in there because it is lighter. I also miss when Frodo got up on the table and recited a long version of the cow jumped over the moon (would it really have been that hard to add that in there?)
I agree with Renkon that Tolkien writes well, but he writes with too much detail. I think the story would benefit if it was told more simply.
I'd change the story so that Gollum would still take the Ring from Frodo at the top of Mt. Doom, but instead of falling in when he tripped, he'd fall to the side, and the Ring would drop into the volcano without him. Then hopefully Smeagol could somehow come back.
And I agree with Helica again. I really wanted to see Saruman destroyed and the Shire's rebuilding. That, Many Meetings, and the part where Pippin and Merry reveal they've been spying are three of my favorite parts.
I tried reading the Silmarillion and failed. crying It just didn't grab me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:54 am
I've read the entire LoTR trilogy a few years back, but I didn't really get it in the first place; partly because my viewpoint had been influenced by the movies.
I haven't gone through the Silmarillion yet, but I did read Children of Hurin. I understood the story at the beginning, but halfway I grew lost and up till now I still can't figure out whether the woman Turin had married was really his sister or someone else entirely. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:50 am
Yeah that was his sister, Glaurang set it up on purpose so that he could reveal to them both what they had done at just the right time to give them the most anguish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:38 am
I have read the whole LOTR triology and am in the process of re-reading it. I have yet to read the Hobbit. I have read bits and pieces of the Children of Hurin. I also read the Silmarillion, didn't understand a bit of it...probably because it was sort of boring and didn't really grab my attention, so I kind of skimmed it. Has any one read The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun? I own it but have yet to break the binding on it.
Tolkeins style of writing is a little too poetic for me, especially when he is describing the battle scenes. I'm also a bit irritated that he goes into too much detail about the history about certain swords in the middle of scenes in the book.
The movies were good. Arwen was given bigger parts because some how, Hollywood had to tie in the romance bit, so therefore, they gave her parts that belonged to different elves, like Glorfindel. Eowyn also was given more parts in the movie than she had in the books as well. Oh and that part where Aragorn converses with Haldir in the woods of Lothlorien was not in the books. It was actualy Legolas that conversed with Haldir. Also, when the Fellowship was traveling, Legolas was supposed to walk in the back of the line, Aragorn walked towards the front. The movies reversed that.
I think with Haldir and the elves fighting at Helms Deep, Peter Jackson was okay with throwing them in that part, since JR Tolkein was not specific as to what happened to them and what their fate was, so it was left up to the reader to decide the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:41 am
I thought that Tolkein had a good idea, but his writing style bugs the crap out of me. I generally dislike English authors from that period to begin with, but he was special. Walk walk walk walk walk walk walk.. etc. It got really old really quick. I don't care about the history of the chair, and the blade is interesting, but could have waited for another time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:15 am
I enjoyed the books. The only real problem I had with the writing style is that he just branched out at random times and told those side stories like many have complained before. But his descriptions were a lot better than some of Ann Rice's, who took two pages to describe one chair. As far as Bombadil and Hamal and Glorfindal goes, I was pissed.
Bombadil: I just wanted to see Merry and Pippin caught in Old Man Willow and the barrow wights.
Glorfindal: I don't know why but I think he should at least be given credit in it somewhere. I mean he did help Frodo and gang find the right road to Rivendell and scare the nine into the river.
Hamal and the Fangorn forest that came to help at Helms Deep should've been in there. I mean, it would've been funny just to see the forest suddenly there when the Uruk kai turned around and bam instant death in the forest.
The shire battle: It should've been in there. I'm sorry but the Shire didn't even look touched when they went back in RotK and it wasn't true. Merry (or was it Pippin) was supposed to blow the horn and all the Shire was to come to arms.
Approve, disapprove, or ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:41 am
xxEternallyBluexx I'd change the story so that Gollum would still take the Ring from Frodo at the top of Mt. Doom, but instead of falling in when he tripped, he'd fall to the side, and the Ring would drop into the volcano without him. Then hopefully Smeagol could somehow come back. It would have been interesting to see, I agree. But I think that, by that point, the Ring had such a strong hold on him and was such an intrical part of his character (his mind, his motivations, etr.) that he wouldn't know what to do with himself after its destruction.
Gollum might just try and kill himself anyway, by throwing himself in after the Ring or something similar. If not then I think he would just go completely catatonic. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:35 pm
Renkon Root xxEternallyBluexx I'd change the story so that Gollum would still take the Ring from Frodo at the top of Mt. Doom, but instead of falling in when he tripped, he'd fall to the side, and the Ring would drop into the volcano without him. Then hopefully Smeagol could somehow come back. It would have been interesting to see, I agree. But I think that, by that point, the Ring had such a strong hold on him and was such an intrical part of his character (his mind, his motivations, etr.) that he wouldn't know what to do with himself after its destruction.
Gollum might just try and kill himself anyway, by throwing himself in after the Ring or something similar. If not then I think he would just go completely catatonic. ... could kick your a** !! Realistically maybe, but Smeagol's redemption wouldn't have had to be entirely realistic. He could've gone through a healing process that would've shown how even the most wretched can be made whole. I don't think Tolkien was wrong for killing Gollum off, but now that I think of it, I might look for a fanfic on this note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:44 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Renkon Root xxEternallyBluexx I'd change the story so that Gollum would still take the Ring from Frodo at the top of Mt. Doom, but instead of falling in when he tripped, he'd fall to the side, and the Ring would drop into the volcano without him. Then hopefully Smeagol could somehow come back. It would have been interesting to see, I agree. But I think that, by that point, the Ring had such a strong hold on him and was such an intrical part of his character (his mind, his motivations, etr.) that he wouldn't know what to do with himself after its destruction.
Gollum might just try and kill himself anyway, by throwing himself in after the Ring or something similar. If not then I think he would just go completely catatonic. ... could kick your a** !! Realistically maybe, but Smeagol's redemption wouldn't have had to be entirely realistic. He could've gone through a healing process that would've shown how even the most wretched can be made whole. I don't think Tolkien was wrong for killing Gollum off, but now that I think of it, I might look for a fanfic on this note. I would be interested in reading it, if indeed you do find one. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:31 pm
I think most of the problems people have with Tolkien's writing style has a lot to do with him essentially being a linguist specializing in translating works from Old English and other Germanic languages before he began his career in fantasy writing. He did extensive studies of mythology from those cultures.
I'm one of very few people that enjoy the amount of detail he goes into. To me, it shows that he really thought out his world and there was an extremely rich history to it. Though there's a few discrepancies with the Silmarillion, I still loved it the most of all just because of the rich historical backdrop it gives the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. To me the whole conflict in Lord of the Rings pales to the wars the Noldor fought because of the SIlmarils. (The only part I didn't necessarily enjoy as much was the section concerning Numenor. It was obviously incomplete and seemed...rushed. That and Sauron just pales in comparison at that time to what he would eventually become, taking up Morgoth's mantle.)
Those legends he starts branching off about in other books concerning swords and the like, they make more sense once you finish the Silmarillion honestly and I love them for it. You go back to read Lord of the Rings after finishing the Silmarillion and little pieces that might have seemed boring before suddenly have much more broad historical context, a place in the big picture I suppose. A great example is in Rivendell when they sing songs about Beren and Luthien, Arwen and Aragorn often reference them. Means absolutely nothing to anybody and may seem like frilly extras if you don't know the actual story of Beren and Luthien.
But I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bit eccentric in my tastes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:08 pm
Renkon Root xxEternallyBluexx Renkon Root xxEternallyBluexx I'd change the story so that Gollum would still take the Ring from Frodo at the top of Mt. Doom, but instead of falling in when he tripped, he'd fall to the side, and the Ring would drop into the volcano without him. Then hopefully Smeagol could somehow come back. It would have been interesting to see, I agree. But I think that, by that point, the Ring had such a strong hold on him and was such an intrical part of his character (his mind, his motivations, etr.) that he wouldn't know what to do with himself after its destruction.
Gollum might just try and kill himself anyway, by throwing himself in after the Ring or something similar. If not then I think he would just go completely catatonic. ... could kick your a** !! Realistically maybe, but Smeagol's redemption wouldn't have had to be entirely realistic. He could've gone through a healing process that would've shown how even the most wretched can be made whole. I don't think Tolkien was wrong for killing Gollum off, but now that I think of it, I might look for a fanfic on this note. I would be interested in reading it, if indeed you do find one. ... could kick your a** !! I found two, but they aren't what I was hoping for: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5693099/1/The_Will_to_Choosehttp://www.fanfiction.net/s/3275749/1/Into_the_Fire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
