The Lord of the Rings

[Carmilla]

Hello everyone!!

Yesterday I finished reading The Lord of the Rings. I found it amazing and really loved it. The characterrs I liked best are Frodo, Gandalf, Sam Gamgee and Aragorn. I cried a little when I finished the last chapter, it was out of emotion. Have you read it? Have you enjoyed it? Which part was your favourite? Have you any favourite characters?

[sandy14]

I read it the 1st time when I was 12 or 13 and I remember cheering on the Riders of Rohim asthey charged through the orcs. A gripping fun book, but you have to get through the birthday party at the beginning to get to the good bits. An epic, and enjoyable story - with a trilogy of films which are not too bad.

The BBC also did a 24 hour radio dramatization which is brilliant.

[Jackson Richardson]

I used to read it every year in my teens. I read it again a few years ago and was very disappointed. I like the first book (and I find the birthday party both amusing and moving - here is the innocent, silly life which is under threat from dark forces.

I find the noble characters - Aragon and the Men of Rohan and the elves - boring. The character characters - hobbits, ents, dwarves and all - amuse me.

Sam and Frodo going alone into Mordor is both moving, potentially tragic.

And Smeagol/Gollum is very moving and tragic.

[tailor STATELY]

I have read the Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion many times. The enigmatic Tom Bombadil and Galadriel remain my favorite characters. I find when Galadriel refuses the one ring the most moving for me in the book and film; Tom Bombadil the most amusing. I still have other books in the franchise to read and hope to do so soon.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Ecurb]

Galadriel clearly has on of the best lines in the novels:

As they are parting, Treebeard says, "I do not think that we shall meet again"

Galadriel said, "Not in Middle-Earth, nor until the lands that lie under the waves are lifted once again. Then in the willow-meads of Tasarinan we may meet in the Spring."

Lord of the Rings was my favorite novel in my youth, and remains one of my favorites.

[Pompey Bum]

I'm not much of a fan, but I do like the detail that hobbits love books that tell them things they already know.

[Dreamwoven]

I have also read the trilogy- several times. I think it was the book of the last century (the 1900s).

[Carmilla]

Thanks for answering.
I liked very much the times when the hobbits visit The Prancing Pony at Bree. And also Mr. Butterbur, he made me smile. :)

[Helga]

Tom Bombadil is my favourite character and the ents are brilliant. I think I have read the trilogy twice and the Hobbit a few times too. The Silmarillion has been on my reading plan for years.

I could see myself living in the Shire, loving home, not even thinking about travelling or seeing other places just me in my hobbithole barefoot in the grass. I always say I am working on my Hobbit feet when I get a comment on my barefeet and hard skin, not hairy though.

[Carmilla]

The first time I read it I was 23-24 and read it in Spanish. This time I read it in English and enjoyed it even more than the first time. :)

[Ecurb]

The Tom Bombadil fans on Litnet can, perhaps, be glad that he was cut from the movie adaptation. Based on the wizard fights (where Gandalf and Saruman blast each other with their staffs, as if they had stumbled into a "Star Wars" or "Harry Potter" movie), the movies would not have done justice to Bombadil.

I was thinking about the difference between magic in Harry Potter and LOTR recently. In Potter, magic is basically equivalent to science and technology: Harry flies an a broom, modern, scientific man flies in an airplane. Harry can blast people with his wand; modern man can blast people with a rifle. Harry learns the principles and techniques of magic in school; modern man learns the principles of technology in science class.

Lord of the Rings magic does involve some technology: rings, for example. But the powers of the rings (other than the rather prosaic power of rendering the wearer invisible) are more mystical and unexplained than Harry Potter magic. That (I think) is why the movies failed to get that part of LOTR right. The ridiculous wizard battles tried to make Gandalf's and Saruman's "powers" more technological than they were in the books. Worse (the worse thing in the movies), the power of the One Ring over Frodo made the One Ring seem like a dose of heroin, depicted by showing Frodo's eyes rolling back in his head as if he'd just main-lined some dope.

This distinction is not universal (the Palantir act a little like telephones, although they can also be more psychic), but in general "knowledge" in Harry Potter involves knowledge of techniques; knowledge (and power) in LOTR involves knowledge of history and lore (as well as a sort of birthright). The One Ring is not a mere technology -- Sauron has put himself, his essence, into it and that's why when it is destroyed, so is he.

[prendrelemick]

For me it is one of the finest books ever written. The way the language evolves and grows with the adventure is wonderful. This is my favourite bit.

With that he seized a great horn from Guthlaf his banner-bearer and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all horns in the host were lifted up in music, and th blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains.

Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Eomer roder there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first eored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Theoden could not be outpaced. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Orome the Great in the bttle of the Valar when the world was young. HIs golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green abou the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and the sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.

Ok it may seem over the top here, but you are brought up to it so that it fits perfectly to the situation and the character of the Rohirrim.

[desiresjab]

The work of Tolkein is made to last, like the potency of some of those artifacts of wizards, dwarves and elves he writes about. A magic sword stays magic for a long time, maybe forever.

The old adage is to write about what you know. Believe it or not, that is what Tolkein did. Few knew more about the legends of elves, dwarfs, wizards, trolls and giants et al, than this scholar. Few had his technical understanding of languages.

Then it helps to be a master of your native language as well. Done.

The movies of his work are the best of their type yet made, and are likely to remain the standard for a long while. This is because no other story in that genre is yet written which can equal the LOTR and the Hobbit. The story will have to be there first. I do not believe it can come from a collaboration of a group of screenwriters. It must come from one human being working under the inspiration for decades.

As a current example, I am confident the screenwriting team which has taken over writing episodes of Game Of Thrones because the author's output simply cannot keep up with the demand for television episodes, can only do an exemplary job because Martin has already fully created the alternative world for them. With the hard part done, they can now tell endless stories within the world Martin created.

The alternative world must not copy original elements of other works. Copying tradition is different. Your elves can be magic, for elves have usually been magical. Rings that make you disappear or 700 ft. ice walls are another matter.

Tolkein, whom so many denigrate and demote as a mere teller of fantasy tales, was a bit more, and will go right on hanging in there with literary giants in the longevity wars. Alice In Wonderland is a pure fantasy classic. There are not many. The entire work of Tolkein goes on the list. It is all one cohesive history.

I do not believe tellers of space tales have yet written a masterpiece of their genre to equal Tolkein's mastery of sword and sorcery. There have been some great space epics, so the point is arguable. No space epic in print rules as the absolute standard for the foreseeable future, which is why I think Tolkein surmounted his genre like few ever manage to do. To consider the greatness it will take to topple him is dizzying. On the other hand, the position is open, I feel, in the space genre, but that epic is not yet written.

[Dreamwoven]

Couldn't agree more. I've never seen the film, so obviously I've missed something!

[desiresjab]

Couldn't agree more. I've never seen the film, so obviously I've missed something!

One visualizes things from the book a certain way, such as the appearance of Gollum, until one sees the movie, when they may permanently change to fit the movie's vision of the character, or the landscape, or Lothlorien. As you might expect, it was in visual effects that the movie broke stunning ground.

A reader of any book is disappointed in some aspects of the later film, and finds much to criticize, such as omitted scenes and characters. It is amazing how much they manage to include, not how much they omit. Visually, the experience will one-up your imagination in scenic wonder. And now that a real fan can watch the entire two triologies in one or two sittings, you cannot complain about the length, which must be in the neighborhood of 15 hours or greater. I hope you treat yourself soon. If you hate them, you can always scold me.

[Dreamwoven]

Thats very well said, desiresjab, though like all else it comes down to personal taste.

[Ecurb]

I disagree with DJ about the movies. I mentioned two of my objections earlier (the wizard fight and Frodo looking as if he'd mainlined heroin). IN addition, the endless battle scenes became dull. "Fellowship" was fairly good -- because the best thing about the movies was the sets. "Fellowship" is a travel movie, and The Shire, Rivendell, and Moria (among other places) looked great. The action scenes weren't as good.

I saw the first Hobbit movie, and skipped the others.

[Jackson Richardson]

I do think it is best to regard books and their movie adaptions as totally separate.

As I said, I was a great fan of the books as a teenager. I went to see the first movie and thought I couldn't remember all these battle scenes with orcs slicing off heads (or having their heads sliced off, I forget which).

Then I re-read the book and found I was quite right. The film included all this violence that was only hinted in the book, and thus more sinister.

[Pompey Bum]

I didn't like any of the Lord of the Rings movies, especially the last one. It just wouldn't die. But the truth is that I didn't have a favorite bad one: I disliked each in its own special way. In fact, I wouldn't have bothered with any of them if it had not been for an anomalous twist of fate. But that is a boring story, rivaling even the unprecedented hour-and-then-some of sheer anticlimax after the damned ring (finally) went down Mt Doom's fiery maw (oh, sorry--retroactive spoiler alert!) But see them I did, and they were the last movies I ever went out to see. I don't even use Netflix now. "LOTR" was that traumatic.

Now the only reason I'm taking on so is that, as I said, I was also a little lukewarm on the books. That means I disliked the movies (mostly) without comparing them to the books. I say mostly because, like JR, I found the Smeagol/Gollum story line moving in the novels and rather liked him as a character. But I didn't like the cinematic Gollum at all--especially his voice. I know exactly what Gollum sounds like, and it's not like a laryngeal Cancer survivor (is it preciousss, no...). But with Gollum excepted, I felt no sense of disappointment in comparison with the books. If anything, I saw the movies favoring inside nods to those who loved the books (takes imitating famous illustrations, for instance) over anything that looked like creative filmmaking to me. Technologically new is not the same as artistically impressive.

As with all book and movie combinations, I strongly recommend doing the reading before surrendering your imagination to the vision of a director/production team and NEVER seeing a movie before reading (or pretending to have read) its source. I applaud the ever-plucky Carmilla for doing this, and I find it interesting that she preferred the English version to her native Spanish. Tolkien is a very English writer, I suppose, especially when he evokes the Old English countryside (whatever he wants to call it). It says a lot about Carmilla's sensitivity (and scholarship) that such nuances would affect her. I am also delighted that she liked the books better than I did. I can't recommend the movies, Carmilla, but I truly hope you enjoy those, too.

[Jackson Richardson]

There is an aspect of the book (books? I believe Prof T originally intended only one book and was persuaded by his publishers to divide it in three) which I certainly didn't pick up in my teens.

It was conceived just before the outbreak of World War Two and started then. The cosy suburban village life of the hobbits reminds me of what the cosy 30s in England must have been with rumours of what was happening in Germany which was due soon to blow it apart. The Shire is not bombed, like southern England was by the Nazis, but is perverted in a way that must have been experienced in Vichy France.

Lobelia Baggins strikes me as far the most interesting female character in the book.

Compare The Shire to St Mary's Mead in Agatha Christie.

[prendrelemick]

I thought the films were good. I admit I was suprised how good they were. ( NOT the Hobbit films which are a complete charmless mess.) When our kids were growing up, on dark winter nights, we would turn the telly off and read a few pages of The Hobbit and LOTR to them - they would read out the songs and poems - it was great, it took us 2 years to get through them. Those books are woven into our collective psyche, they are part of our family history.
So anyway, I went to see the first film prepared to be disappointed - Ok Tom, Goldberry and Glorfindel are missing, but I think they are made with integrity and are great films in their own right, as well as fair adaptations.

[prendrelemick]

There is an aspect of the book (books? I believe Prof T originally intended only one book and was persuaded by his publishers to divide it in three) which I certainly didn't pick up in my teens.

It was conceived just before the outbreak of World War Two and started then. The cosy suburban village life of the hobbits reminds me of what the cosy 30s in England must have been with rumours of what was happening in Germany which was due soon to blow it apart. The Shire is not bombed, like southern England was by the Nazis, but is perverted in a way that must have been experienced in Vichy France.

Lobelia Baggins strikes me as far the most interesting female character in the book.

Compare The Shire to St Mary's Mead in Agatha Christie.

I read somewhere that Tolkien said those last chapters - The Scourging of the Shire - contain the most important lessons of the book, explaining that defending the homefront is as vital as victories abroad.

[Pompey Bum]

I thought the films were good. I admit I was suprised how good they were. ( NOT the Hobbit films which are a complete charmless mess.) When our kids were growing up, on dark winter nights, we would turn the telly off and read a few pages of The Hobbit and LOTR to them - they would read out the songs and poems - it was great, it took us 2 years to get through them. Those books are woven into our collective psyche, they are part of our family history.
So anyway, I went to see the first film prepared to be disappointed - Ok Tom, Goldberry and Glorfindel are missing, but I think they are made with integrity and are great films in their own right, as well as fair adaptations.

That's a lovely story. I can see how the books would be precious to your family. I actually liked the Hobbit when I first read it, but I was only 13 years old at the time. I read the rest of them about three years later, but Middle Earth and I had both changed by then. Still I begrudge no one the joy they find in those books.



There is an aspect of the book (books? I believe Prof T originally intended only one book and was persuaded by his publishers to divide it in three) which I certainly didn't pick up in my teens.

It was conceived just before the outbreak of World War Two and started then. The cosy suburban village life of the hobbits reminds me of what the cosy 30s in England must have been with rumours of what was happening in Germany which was due soon to blow it apart. The Shire is not bombed, like southern England was by the Nazis, but is perverted in a way that must have been experienced in Vichy France.

I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that Tolkein was writing for his son who was in the RAF fighting in North Africa. That is why the theme of the brave little guy on a desperate journey in a dangerous world is so important to the story. If true, it's a rather moving consideration (and if not--it is at least one way to consider the implications of the story).

[Dreamwoven]

I disagree with DJ about the movies. I mentioned two of my objections earlier (the wizard fight and Frodo looking as if he'd mainlined heroin). IN addition, the endless battle scenes became dull. "Fellowship" was fairly good -- because the best thing about the movies was the sets. "Fellowship" is a travel movie, and The Shire, Rivendell, and Moria (among other places) looked great. The action scenes weren't as good.

I saw the first Hobbit movie, and skipped the others.

This is an important point. I did see the TV Movie and "endless battle scenes" marred the film for me, too.

[desiresjab]

It is just a fact, Dream, that a lot of very serious literary folk do not take Tokein seriously. This would especially be true among the highbrow crowd, no knock against them.

LOTR stands so far outside literary tradition, for highbrows. They expect a certain kind of character and plot development. The element of realism is a primary consideration for them. Before Schniellmann Homer was acceptable because it was so ancient and considered part of mythology. Now we know there was a real Troy and a real sacking, so the Illiad is even more firmly entrenched as a classic.

LOTR does not remotely resemble our own history, other than kings have been cruel, despots have been despotic and heros have been heroic, so it lacks that type of realism that is so valued. That type of realism highlights the human experience through characters you could believe were real. Has anyone won the Nobel prize for writing fantasy? I think never, and never to be. Satirical fantasy would be acceptable to the committee, but not sword and sorcery, we know that without asking, right?

Though the LOTR does indeed come from a rich literary tradition, it is the wrong one, no matter how steeped the book is in those Norse traditions.

The characters in LOTR are not really human, even the human ones. They are more noble, more courageous, more forgiving, more innocent than what we would expect from real people, as if back a long, long time ago, people and society were that different from today. We wouldn't know, then. That is the problem.

It is only a problem for those who cannot enjoy the books. More than anything, the books are about enjoyment, what they call pure, old escapist literature enjoyment, not exploring the human condition. LOTR is the best work of that genre ever written. I am satifsfied with that, because I can enjoy pure fantasy.

The characters are not deep, literary characters, but what is known in the trade as flat--you know their natures to a great depth after only a paragraph or a sentence and can have confidence in your judgements in that regard. People are far more variable and less predictable than the typical Tolkein character.

Those are some of the reasons LOTR is not regarded as high literature by people who make those judgements. The books are not character driven but plot driven.

LOTR is not great literature in the normal sense. Once you relax and let it be what it is, instead of pointing out how well it does not fit into convenient schemes of literary vogue, we have the ability to identify with its characters, which is the first step toward enjoyability.

Some people have an immediate revulsion to this genre, and that is okay. They will never like it under any circumstances. To others, there is nothing odd about allowing oneself to escape deep into such a work. Only when we are deep in it can we take away everything it has to offer. It is good to know who on here is of which type.

[desiresjab]

Duplicate

[Dreamwoven]

Some good points there, desiresjab!

[prendrelemick]

I think it is a little more than that. Not realism no, it is a modern mythology of the West, as the Greek myths once were for the early Greeks. By that I mean it is a story that is driven by the idealized values of the society that created it and will reflect those values into the future. Just as today we may be able to dig up and study the remains of the first Greeks, but it is through Homeric fantasy we know them.

I don't mean LOTR will be comparable to the Illiad and Odyssey in the future, I am illustrating what I mean by mythology.

[Helga]

Here on the ice Tolkien is certainly not looked down on in any way. There are classes at uni about his work and one of the best known literature professor here has written extensively on the subject, both books and author. In one of his Tolkien class the students had to write a poem or story in the spirit of Midgard as an assignment.

Maybe he is held in high regard here is because of his interest in Iceland. Some words are pronounced in 'Icelandic' like Beorn is pronounced the way we say the word bear. Also some of his mythological creatures are rooted in Icelandic mythology.

[Pompey Bum]

This is an important point. I did see the TV Movie and "endless battle scenes" marred the film for me, too.

Even "endless battle scenes" can be okay if there's some point to them. But those scenes weren't much more than methadone for computer game junkies, were they? Even worse, they were boring. Isn't it amazing what technology can do these days? Yes. :Yawn: Amazing.

[Pompey Bum]

It is just a fact, Dream, that a lot of very serious literary folk do not take Tokein seriously. This would especially be true among the highbrow crowd, no knock against them.


Those are some of the reasons LOTR is not regarded as high literature by people who make those judgements. The books are not character driven but plot driven.

LOTR is not great literature in the normal sense. Once you relax and let it be what it is, instead of pointing out how well it does not fit into convenient schemes of literary vogue, we have the ability to identify with its characters, which is the first step toward enjoyability.

Some people have an immediate revulsion to this genre, and that is okay. They will never like it under any circumstances.


It is good to know who on here is of which type.

Well, knock or no knock, DJ, it sounds to me like you are rationalizing a prejudice against folks with whom you simply don't agree. How would you know why another person didn't like those books as much as you did? Why reduce such people to a "type," examples of which you are glad to have identified? People enjoy what they enjoy. Why be angry about it.


It is only a problem for those who cannot enjoy the books.

I'm with you on that, though. I wish I liked the Middle Earth books as much as many do. As I said, I begrudge them none of that joy. And Tolkien is at least a good writer. I wish I could enjoy bad writers like Stephen King! But I genuinely don't, and I'm not going to lie about it for fear of getting on someone's stereotype list. Read what you love. I know I will.

[Clopin]

I disagree with DJ about the movies. I mentioned two of my objections earlier (the wizard fight and Frodo looking as if he'd mainlined heroin). IN addition, the endless battle scenes became dull. "Fellowship" was fairly good -- because the best thing about the movies was the sets. "Fellowship" is a travel movie, and The Shire, Rivendell, and Moria (among other places) looked great. The action scenes weren't as good.

I saw the first Hobbit movie, and skipped the others.

Pretty much this. The Hobbit movie was terrible (I also only saw the first one) and Fellowship is the only decent LOTR movie because of what you mentioned.

[Ecurb]

As Pompey (I think it was he) suggested, some of the sets seem to have been based on the Hildebrandt paintings.

One theory (which I read somewhere) is that LOTR (and other genre fiction) represents a different approach to coming of age. In Lit. Class Fiction, the characters 'develop' and change, just as children and teenagers must develop into adults. In LOTR, Thorin Oakenshield is "Thorin, son of Thrain, son of Thror, King under the Mountain" from day one. His character is fixed by his heritage. However, "wisdom" consists of learning the lore and heritage of the past. And children develop into adults both by developing their character and by educating themselves -- by learning about history and about their own capabilities. .

Bilbo doesn't really change. Instead, he learns that he was capable of heroic deeds all along.

[Pompey Bum]

One theory (which I read somewhere) is that LOTR (and other genre fiction) represents a different approach to coming of age. In Lit. Class Fiction, the characters 'develop' and change, just as children and teenagers must develop into adults. In LOTR, Thorin Oakenshield is "Thorin, son of Thrain, son of Thror, King under the Mountain" from day one. His character is fixed by his heritage. However, "wisdom" consists of learning the lore and heritage of the past. And children develop into adults both by developing their character and by educating themselves -- by learning about history and about their own capabilities.

It's an interesting idea, Ecurb. I always saw Frodo as analogous to a young country squire who has inherited a place and just doesn't know how he's going to deal with life's responsibilities. Then the crisis comes--which is sort of like the War--and he grows (as you say) in character. Bilbo on the other hand is sort of a doddering old uncle from the moment we meet him. I loved Bilbo's character as a 13 year old (and despised his characterization in The Fellowship movie). I must also admit that Frodo is a more mature character (meaning he appeals to more mature aspects of the reader), but I just didn't buy it at 16. I was I to Sherlock Holmes at the time, then Bram Stoker, then Dickens. Tolkien always seemed like something from a younger time. But literature takes everyone differently--just as it should do.

[prendrelemick]

A word about those battle scenes, I completely agree re The Hobbit films, pointless and tedious and many were not in the book and added nothing but padding. Not so with LOTR - or not so much - because the director switched between the epic scene and individual and knew when and how to do it to keep me interested. ( I admit Helms Deep went on a bit though.)

[Pompey Bum]

A word about those battle scenes, I completely agree re The Hobbit films, pointless and tedious and many were not in the book and added nothing but padding. Not so with LOTR - or not so much - because the director switched between the epic scene and individual and knew when and how to do it to keep me interested. ( I admit Helms Deep went on a bit though.)

I just remember noise and fuss. But maybe the problem was that I didn't really want to be there. They used to release those movies around Christmas (at least here in America). I was living sort of near Boston and my brother was living quite near. He would have a Christmas Eve party that I'd drive to after picking up my wife at her job in Cambridge (the city next to Boston). The trouble was that Mrs. Bum's work would let out early for the holiday, so we would have a few hours to kill before the party started. One year we decided to see The Fellowship of the Ring because, what the heck, it was Tolkien, right? However bad it was it was going to beat Mel Gibson or Mr Bean. We weren't crazy about the movie, though, and we pretty much forgot all about it until the next year found us in an identical situation. So for three years going to Lord of the Rings movies that we didn't really like became a gala Christmas tradition with the Bums. Not as good as your family tradition of reading Tolkien to your children, Prendrelmick, but it was the one we ended up with. Each movie was a little worse than the last (IMHO) and by the end of Return of the King my no-longer-young coccyx was throbbing in pain.

So maybe I didn't give them as I much of a chance as I might have, but I'm pretty sure it is the only chance they are ever going to get from me. And as Tiny Tim observed, "God bless us, every one."

[Scheherazade]

~Reminder ~

Please keep discussions civil.

Posts containing personalized remarks have been and will be removed without further notice.

[DieterM]

I've always been a huge fan of LOTR. Read it at 12 (in the German translation, mind you) and found it longish and dull. But luckily I had another try when I had grown up and was fluent enough in English to read the original version. And loved it ever since. I think I must've read it ten times or twelve or even more, and I know I'll read it again some more times. It's as if I was coming home or embracing a good old friend. Rare are the books where i'm thinking at the end "Why can't this exist in reality?"

As far as the LOTR-movies are concerned, I liked them a bit less than the books but found them not too bad (rather dig that movie genre to be honest). Now, as far as "The Hobbit" is concerned… in my eyes the main default of the movies is that they don't capture the essential tone of the book at all. I consider LOTR as an epic book for grown-ups whereas "The Hobbit" is a book for kids. That's why I do love "The Hobbit" too – the playful, childlike music humming throughout the book. Now the LOTR-movies were as epic as the books; but "The Hobbit" was way too grim and dark and… well, "grown-up", if I'm allowed to use this term for a movie. So I have to admit I didn't like them at all.

[Dreamwoven]

Dieter, you have caught what I also feel, having, like you, read LotR several times. It is almost time for me to read it again after some 5 years, not having read it, so I am probably getting abstinence problems.

What is the difference between a film and a movie, I've always thought of movies as the American word for films? The problem with films is that they are too compressed, so go from one adventure sequence to another, bypassing the quieter passages. These are also needed to stop the pace of the story getting too breathless.

[prendrelemick]

Context is all.

[JCamilo]

Here on the ice Tolkien is certainly not looked down on in any way. There are classes at uni about his work and one of the best known literature professor here has written extensively on the subject, both books and author. In one of his Tolkien class the students had to write a poem or story in the spirit of Midgard as an assignment.

Maybe he is held in high regard here is because of his interest in Iceland. Some words are pronounced in 'Icelandic' like Beorn is pronounced the way we say the word bear. Also some of his mythological creatures are rooted in Icelandic mythology.

I remember, a long ago, a forum where people were upset because Borges said he didnt like what he read of Lord of the rings, and they started to attack Borges like crazy. It was funny, because most of them had no idea about Borges and thought he was talking moved by envy. The truth is Tolkien is not "great literatura", who cares anyways, but I suppose he is the good minor writer groups. Deserves his place with Conan Doyle, Lovecraft, Bram Stoker... They are honest in their ambitions.

I think the merit of Tolkien is not the plot (not that great either), but how his literatura is very visual. It is a big surprise to see this as a big best-seller, when it follows so little of the best seller rules. I think because of this visual trait. This is so powerful that they live on the many illustrations of his work and in the movie (wise enough to use the already stabilished visual, but here is all wisdow of those movies) and this is peculiar. He was writting during a momment society perceptions were shifting to the visual again. Kudos to him. No wonder that a blind man like Borges wasnt moved by Tolkien (there are other motives as well, but this strikes me as obviously).

As the movies, hardly imagine something so bad that wasnt directed by Michael Bay. Like I said, they did well to use the visual already stabilished by the illustrations of the books, so we get taken to the movies, we see middleeather is possible... then things dragg. They screwed the world building the books, no pacing, the characters of Tolkien are flat, but in the movie they are a thin line, so bad that even good actors couldn't offer much, bad editing... so we are left with the scenary. Which existed in the fans mind already. Tolkien hated the movies (true story, get one of his letters when the first attempts to negociate a movie adaptation were made, he wrote a list of the motives why the script they sent to him would fail. Tolkien was very cranky, but if you follow his list, you will feel he could be talking about Peter Jackson).

[Pompey Bum]

I think the merit of Tolkien is not the plot (not that great either), but how his literatura is very visual.

I agree, but I would go even further. Tolkien had a gift for writing physically--even geographically. When Frodo and Sam find something evil in a dark and clammy outcrop of rocks, it's because something evil would have been in a place like that. The topography is haunted by its very physicality. And Mirkwood became free of its spiders and trolls when it was restored to Greenwood the Great. Even the evil things have a physicality. They are (usually) preternaturals rather than supernaturals. And even Tolkien's wraiths used to have bodies.

This physical-topographical sense is why (as Clopin said) The Fellowship of the Ring is in effect a road story. It's also one of the reasons I didn't like the book at 16. I remember thinking: What do I care that Sam and Frodo went up that hill? Nothing interesting happened there and it didn't move the plot along. But in retrospect, I see that Tolkien was using the land itself to darken the story.


The truth is Tolkien is not "great literatura", who cares anyways, but I suppose he is the good minor writer groups. Deserves his place with Conan Doyle, Lovecraft, Bram Stoker... They are honest in their ambitions.

I agree about Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker. (I haven't read much Lovecraft, but I fear his devotees will call the wrath of Cthulhu on your head for such blasphemy :) ). But these authors (and Tolkien) deserve to be read by Middle to High School students, and all are vastly superior to Harry Potter and all that dumb down. I will say this for Harry, though: he got a generation of children to read again, which is more than some of their parents do.

Was Tolkien really a cranky old man? Hmmm. Maybe it's time for a reassessment. :)

[Ecurb]

Tolkien's students (including Kingsley Amis and Phillip Larkin) though he was one of the most boring teachers ever. Here's an article from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/12/05/the-dragons-egg

[JCamilo]

I agree, but I would go even further. Tolkien had a gift for writing physically--even geographically. When Frodo and Sam find something evil in a dark and clammy outcrop of rocks, it's because something evil would have been in a place like that. The topography is haunted by its very physicality. And Mirkwood became free of its spiders and trolls when it was restored to Greenwood the Great. Even the evil things have a physicality. They are (usually) preternaturals rather than supernaturals. And even Tolkien's wraiths used to have bodies.

This physical-topographical sense is why (as Clopin said) The Fellowship of the Ring is in effect a road story. It's also one of the reasons I didn't like the book at 16. I remember thinking: What do I care that Sam and Frodo went up that hill? Nothing interesting happened there and it didn't move the plot along. But in retrospect, I see that Tolkien was using the land itself to darken the story.

Yes, no doubt of that. There is a motive why Tolkien was very detailed and careful with those aspects. Because that was the soul of his work. Hence the movie was so empty, they never captured this aspect of the work and why the new age movement adopted it.
,


I agree about Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker. (I haven't read much Lovecraft, but I fear his devotees will call the wrath of Cthulhu on your head for such blasphemy :) ). But these authors (and Tolkien) deserve to be read by Middle to High School students, and all are vastly superior to Harry Potter and all that dumb down. I will say this for Harry, though: he got a generation of children to read again, which is more than some of their parents do.

Was Tolkien really a cranky old man? Hmmm. Maybe it's time for a reassessment. :)

They should be happy, Lovecraft is in a fine company. There are many others there, such as Agatha Christie, Artur Clarke, Isaac Asimov... we call them genre writers, but I think they are more "one idea" writers. Not so sure about Harry Potter, I do not think it is original or great, but perhaps she got the one idea too, we just fail to notice it.

I guess Tolkien could be crank. A edition of The Hobbit by Maurice Sendak didnt happen because both were very crank, after all.

[Pompey Bum]

They should be happy, Lovecraft is in a fine company. There are many others there, such as Agatha Christie, Artur Clarke, Isaac Asimov... we call them genre writers, but I think they are more "one idea" writers.

I would add Chesterton to that list (for Ecurb's sake) and David Cornwall/John Le Carre (for mine). I once read something in which Cornwall was staunchly defending Conan Doyle's works. It soon became clear he was really defending his own. It's too bad he felt he had to do that. My credo has always been: read what you love.

[JCamilo]

Oh, no, Chesterton is in another list, the Little Great Writers. His skills with the text in more than one form (or idea) are superior to all those guys. Probally the best Detective short stories, a very good novel at last, a decent poet, good critic and more like, one of the best ensaists of XX century. He is there with Oscar Wilde, Wells and a few others. The probally limit between the Good minor writers and the Little Great writers is someone like Ray Bradbury.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, I'm sure you'll get no complaint from Ecurb about Chesterton. I find him a little dated, but someone like that either grabs you by the Testaments or he doesn't. :) And I'd put Wilde (at his best, anyway) on a higher list. But truth is that we have our own lists. Sometimes they overlap, but (Chesterton notwithstanding), we are better off without orthodoxy.

[Jackson Richardson]

What is the difference between a film and a movie, I've always thought of movies as the American word for films?

A movie is the American word for a film just as rest room is the American word for a lavatory.

[JCamilo]

Well, I'm sure you'll get no complaint from Ecurb about Chesterton. I find him a little dated, but someone like that either grabs you by the Testaments or he doesn't. :) And I'd put Wilde (at his best, anyway) on a higher list. But truth is that we have our own lists. Sometimes they overlap, but (Chesterton notwithstanding), we are better off without orthodoxy.

Many Chesterton ideas are dated, but the bigger thing, is that often he is somehow more modern than many of today's religious leader. It was not because his roundness that he couldnt see more than one side in one argument.

[Ecurb]

Well, I'm sure you'll get no complaint from Ecurb about Chesterton. I find him a little dated, but someone like that either grabs you by the Testaments or he doesn't. :) And I'd put Wilde (at his best, anyway) on a higher list. But truth is that we have our own lists. Sometimes they overlap, but (Chesterton notwithstanding), we are better off without orthodoxy.

Chesterton was not a great novelist. He's one of my favorite essayists and literary critics. I also like his poetry (although I admit that's an idiosyncratic taste).

Wilde was also a good literary critic and essayist, and he wrote two of my favorite children's stories (The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant) and one of the funniest plays (Importance of being Earnest). I'm not sure if Wilde wrote about Chesterton, but Chesterton did write about Wilde, and (as usual) did so trenchantly. Chesterton is certainly dated: I own a book of his newspaper columns, in which, among other things, he argues against women's suffrage. It's fun to see someone as good-hearted and generous as Chesterton tie himself into knots defending a position that we moderns find indefensible.

[Pompey Bum]

Many Chesterton ideas are dated, but the bigger thing, is that often he is somehow more modern than many of today's religious leader. It was not because his roundness that he couldnt see more than one side in one argument.

No, I meant I find Ecurb's ideas a little dated. (Just kidding). Chesterton had a heart of gold at times, and that has a timeless quality, I will admit.

[Pompey Bum]

A movie is the American word for a film just as rest room is the American word for a lavatory.

Like the English call escalators elevators, elevators lifts, suspenders braces, and garter belts suspenders. At least the French know they speak a different language. :)

[Dreamwoven]

I like the different meanings of English and American words you describe, Pompey. :)

[Magnocrat]

Its a difficult read compared to the hobbit and the eternal motion can be a bit wearing. I found myself skipping parts filled with flowery language and poetry.
Tolkien was a devout Catholic and some have compared Frodo to a Christ- like figure who sacrifices himself to defeat evil. The whole story is a mighty evil versus good parable. Saruman is one of the most human characters he plays the field and eventually loses.

[Dreamwoven]

The saddest part for me was the fate of Arwen Evenstar after Aragorn died. She wandered and ended her days dying on Cerin Amroth, where her green grave lies, forgotten. She had founded a line. But none remembered her. This can be read under the section on "here follows a part of the tale of Aragorn and Arwen."

[WICKES]

Tolkein, whom so many denigrate and demote as a mere teller of fantasy tales, was a bit more, and will go right on hanging in there with literary giants in the longevity wars. Alice In Wonderland is a pure fantasy classic. There are not many. The entire work of Tolkein goes on the list. It is all one cohesive history.

I do not believe tellers of space tales have yet written a masterpiece of their genre to equal Tolkein's mastery of sword and sorcery. There have been some great space epics, so the point is arguable. No space epic in print rules as the absolute standard for the foreseeable future, which is why I think Tolkein surmounted his genre like few ever manage to do. To consider the greatness it will take to topple him is dizzying. On the other hand, the position is open, I feel, in the space genre, but that epic is not yet written.



Yes, that's a very good post. I agree.

I have never been able to make up my mind about Tolkien. On the whole, I do think the Lord of the Rings are magnificent, though I never quite enjoy them as much as I wish I could. I don't know why. But Tolkien certainly had talent. Passages of his work are genuinely poetic and beautiful. And these were not the scribblings of some ridiculous, socially dysfunctional nerd escaping into a fantasy world. Tolkien was a pretty normal, sociable man – and a veteran of the Somme, where he had served as a British officer (the Hobbits are based British infantry soldiers he met from rural England).

One of the things I really admire is the sense you get of an epic struggle between good and evil – of something vast and cosmic in the background, and then something simple and good in the foreground (the shire). The books definitely came from some hidden depth in Tolkien. People forget that he was an Oxford professor as well. This was a man with a vast store of knowledge about myth, literature and language to drawn upon.