DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Perpetual Change on May 05, 2011, 07:48:50 PM
-
I know there have been a few LotR threads, but I'd love to discuss some of Tolkien's other work, like the Silmarillion, Children of Hurin (maybe the best Tolkien book, all things considered?), his translation of some Old and Middle English Epics, etc...
I bought "The Legend of Sigurd & Gurdun" yesterday and am about to snuggle down with it tonight. This will be the first time I've read for fun in a long time. Has anyone else read this book?
-
I was a Tolkien nut back in the day. I got through about half of the Silmarillion and then ended up skimming the rest. I was young and burned out. I've wanted to get around to The Legend of Sigurd & Gurdun, but the timing never quite felt right. I've been sort of waiting for my interest in his writing to rekindle before I pick that one up. But hell, maybe picking it up is what I need for that interest.
Tell me how you like it, I tend to read a lot over the summer and I might get around to it then.
-
Well, it's a poem. I'm not sure if you'd been into that?
But you should check out The Children of Hurin. It's awesome, very good as a more-or-less "stand-alone" Tolkien novel. It's pretty much the best part of Silmarillion but not written like a history book.
-
Is The Silmarillion connected to LOTR in any way? Is it even set in Middle Earth? I've always been confused about this.
-
Is The Silmarillion connected to LOTR in any way? Is it even set in Middle Earth? I've always been confused about this.
Seriously, reading any source ever about the book would tell you that. Yes, it's in Middle Earth. It's pretty much a very in-depth description of that universe, and a lot of it is useful background that helps you understand LOTR/etc. better, while the rest of the content is very interesting on it's own, as well.
-
The Silmarillion is basically the creation/history of Middle Earth as told by the elves. "In universe," I think it's what becomes the book of elvish stories that Bilbo translates while he's in Rivendell. Similar to how LOTR is There And Back Again.
-
Is The Silmarillion connected to LOTR in any way? Is it even set in Middle Earth? I've always been confused about this.
Kind of. As a result of the events that take place in the Silmarillion, Middle Earth needs to be rebuilt mostly so the world actually isn't that similar geographically. But some of the characters appear in both. Sauron is like the number 2 bad guy of the Silmarillion's main bad guy.
-
I've been wanting to try this for a while. Do you think it's better to read
a) in chronological order? (ex Similarian -> The Hobbit -> LOTR)
or
b) in order it was published?
I like "a" because it has a continuity aspect, but I like "b" because it seems like that's how Tolkein would have wanted his works to be read (a la Star Wars ep IV coming first).
-
If you haven't read The Hobbit/LOTR yet do not read the Silmarillion. Because of the way it's written and the sheer volume of names it might scare you off.
-
I've been wanting to try this for a while. Do you think it's better to read
a) in chronological order? (ex Similarian -> The Hobbit -> LOTR)
or
b) in order it was published?
I like "a" because it has a continuity aspect, but I like "b" because it seems like that's how Tolkein would have wanted his works to be read (a la Star Wars ep IV coming first).
It's up to you, but the Similarian is a very large and daunting undertaking for being your first Tolkien book. (I assume it is) Don't start with that one.
Between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings there is not really a right answer, but I would say to go for the Hobbit. Tolkien's style of writing and the adventurous mood of that book was what got me into Tolkien, and it remains my favorite.
-
I read LOTR a long time ago, and just finished The Hobbit a week ago. I was just thinking about starting over to get the full effect.
-
Ah, ok. I don't think there's really any "right order" to the books in any way. It's really up to you, but I'd say b. The Similarian would be a much better read if LOTR was fresh in your mind.
-
You could give The Silmarillion a shot then. It reads like a verbal history book so it's kind of a love it or hate it kind of thing. I'm just glad there was a index of names in the back for my first reading. :lol
-
I love Tolkien, I really do...
...but the Silmarillion is the most boring thing I've ever read.
-
By the way, off topic, but the fourth Eragon book was announced and is coming out soon. I used to love Eragon....but well....after I got a bit smarter I realized how bad it was. Which makes me feel even more guilty about being excited for number 4.
-
By the way, off topic, but the fourth Eragon book was announced and is coming out soon. I used to love Eragon....but well....after I got a bit smarter I realized how bad it was. Which makes me feel even more guilty about being excited for number 4.
By the time I was 15, I could tell how obviously the second book ripped off Star Wars. I still haven't read the third one.
-
I love Tolkien, I really do...
...but the Silmarillion is the most boring thing I've ever read.
I used to love you...
...not anymore.
-
By the way, off topic, but the fourth Eragon book was announced and is coming out soon. I used to love Eragon....but well....after I got a bit smarter I realized how bad it was. Which makes me feel even more guilty about being excited for number 4.
Ew. No place whatsoever in a Tolkien thread
-
Well I'm a bit of a LOTR nut, and The Silmarillion is by far my favourite book.
So here's what's up; The Silmarillion is a collection of "books" or "parts" that explain how the world began with "The One" who created the gods (Valar and Maiar), who then all worked together to create the world in it's entirety (Beleriand, Middle-Earth, etc.).
The story explains how one of the gods (the most powerful one) goes rogue and decides to take over, and he becomes the antagonist of the novel (Sauron was his number one minion).
What follows is how the elves live in Beleriand (the land to the west of Middle-Earth; it eventually becomes broken by war and disappears) and how they cope/battle with the rogue god (Morgoth), his followers, and with themselves. Later on, the race of men (the second-born) join the party as well. Stuff happens, you can read the rest.
All in all, the Silmarillion concerns the shaping of the world, as well as the history of the elves and of the ancient races of men. It's chock full of great stories of battles and legendary persons. The history about the entire world is, for me, the best part. You learn how things came to be in Middle-Earth, what the elves were like in their glory days, how the races of men were and such.
And I would love to chat about it at any time, PC. Feel free to pm me, and thanks for starting this thread!
-
I love Tolkien, I really do...
...but the Silmarillion is the most boring thing I've ever read.
I used to love you...
...not anymore.
:'(
-
The Silmarillion is awesome! I've read it twice, and will probably hit it again. But I picked up Children of Hurin and have to finish that first.
I suggest the following order:
1. The Hobbit
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. The Silmarillion
4. Any others, including The Tolkien Reader, Lost Tales, and The Children of Hurin.
The Hobbit was originally written as a children's story, but children's stories back then were not necessarily light reading, and JRRT wrote one hell of a children's story. The Lord of the Rings is much more serious in tone and much broader in scope. It was written after, and is meant to dig deeper into the ring lore. Bilbo's magic ring turns out to be much more than the trinket he thought it was, etc.
The Silmarillion is the history of Middle Earth and was published after The Lord of the Rings but JRRT had been working on it longer. The Lord of the Rings, the book(s), has a lot of singing and folklore cut out of the movies, but many stories from The Silmarillion are the bases for the songs and poems in The Lord of the Rings. There is also a lot concerning the original rings of power. The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings is "one ring to rule them all" but we don't know anything about the others.
So basically go in order of publication.
-
Thanks Orbert! By the way, I like how you noted that The Lord of the Rings is a single book and not a trilogy.
-
The Silmarillion is an exceptionally boring read.....like most history books are...but alot if not all..is essential to understanding why certain factions behave the way they do. Why the deep distrust of the elves exists. For instance....she-lob didn't just..materialize out of thin air....even her history..and her ancestry is richly explained...she came from a line of very..VERY bad spiders.
:spider:
-
Thanks Orbert! By the way, I like how you noted that The Lord of the Rings is a single book and not a trilogy.
Yeah I decided to flip it open last week 'cause I hadn't read it since before the movies or something and I was really surprised to learn that.
-
The Silmarillion is really boring.
And even worse, doesn't have a complete map!
-
I love Tolkien, and as good as all the other books are (The Hobbit, Silmarillion, Children of Hurin), The Lord of the Rings is always my favourite :)
-
Just finished the Sigurd poem.
Man, that was dense. I have very little idea as to what actually happened. Guess I'd better try again!
-
JRRT wanted The Lord of the Rings published as a single volume as it's just one long story. In fact, he divided the story into five "books" internally. Publishers insisted on breaking it into three volumes so that they'd sell more books, because people would still be more likely to purchase three books, one at a time, than one really expensive book which is also huge and unwieldy. People who like to sit in bed or a chair or on the couch with a paperback know that it's a very different experience with a five-pound hardcover book.
I think "The Fellowship of the Ring" was really Books I and II, "The Two Towers" was Books III and IV, and "The Return of the King" was Book V plus the Appendices. I have a nice hardcover version of the whole thing, but it's literally just for show. I've never read it, because it's a pain in the ass to deal with. I just pull out my old paperbacks.
-
I've read much of almost all of Tolkien's writings that I've been able to find. The Lost Tales and The Silmarillion remain my favorite of his works. The depth and breadth of his world is mindboggling. I love how his stories have this feeling of reality, thanks to the in-depth development of his languages and his consistency in mythology.
The Silmarillion is basically the creation myth of Middle-earth, how the Valar came to be, how Iluvatar brought Elves and Men into being. It basically outlines the history of the Elves in Middle-earth, including the rise and fall of Morgoth and the various dominions in the Elvish world.
-
I need to try reading The Silmarillion again. I started it when I was 14, and couldn't grasp it. I was, at the time, I huge Tolkien fan... fueled by a girl I was falling for at the time...
Don't touch the Silmarillion until you are comfortable with The Hobbit and LOTR...
That would be like trying to digest Scenes from a Memory completely without ever hearing any other DT...
wait that doesnt work
-
The Silmarillion is the heaviest Tolkien of all, or at least the heaviest I've encountered so far. Yes, it's a history book more than a story book, but it is still written in narrative form, and despite the much drier delivery, I still found the subject matter itself to be fascinating, more than enough to keep me reading.
But I can understand it when people call it boring or just too difficult to get through.
-
I've read a lot of Tolkein, and The Silmarillion was the toughest to make it through, but I found it quite enjoyable.
If memory serves, Tolkein wanted the third volume of LOTR to be titled The War of the Ring, because he felt that The Return of the King gave away the ending. But the publisher overruled him.
-
I've read a lot of Tolkein, and The Silmarillion was the toughest to make it through, but I found it quite enjoyable.
If memory serves, Tolkein wanted the third volume of LOTR to be titled The War of the Ring, because he felt that The Return of the King gave away the ending. But the publisher overruled him.
Interesting fact.
-
Another interesting fact:
When I was in junior high back in the 70's, The Lord of the Rings was going through one of its popular phases and it seemed like everybody was carrying around one of the books, either The Hobbit or one of the three volumes of LOTR. There were many discussions about them, of course, at the bus stop, at lunch, during study periods, etc. One of the big topics, for people who had finished it, was how cool it was that Aragorn, who we met as Strider the Ranger way back in Bree, turned out to be the king. Wow! What a cool twist. We always knew there was something extra cool about him.
In other words, the title of the third volume somehow didn't give away the ending. We knew the king was coming back, I guess, but apparently very few of us figured it out.
-
The title didn't give it away for me either :)
-
I've read a lot of Tolkein, and The Silmarillion was the toughest to make it through, but I found it quite enjoyable.
If memory serves, Tolkein wanted the third volume of LOTR to be titled The War of the Ring, because he felt that The Return of the King gave away the ending. But the publisher overruled him.
As if there was much question about how it would end :rollin
-
Well, to be fair, destroying The Ring was always the main objective of the quest, and the defeat of the evil demigod Sauron was intimately linked to that. All the talk about the ancient Men of the West who were descended from the Kings of Gondor and how the Rangers were rumoured to be them in hiding or exile or whatever, seemed a secondary plot at best, and mostly just backstory for us, and I think JRRT meant it to be that way. As the story went on, it did seem to come up a bit more often, but it still felt like it was just to give us more background on the whole deal with Gondor and Rohan and Denethor and Theoden, and who the Stewards are and why they're not Kings, and again it was easy to dismiss because the big war was coming up, and Frodo and Sam were in Mordor now, etc. And oh yeah, those giant flying things that can totally tear the city up. Let's focus on what's important, okay?
Then once Sauron is defeated, Gandalf has to point out to them that the King has returned. Only the King could have wielded the sword and enlisted the help of The Grateful Dead, and didn't Bilbo point out to everyone way back in Rivendell that Aragorn was "the Dunedain" -- the Man of the West? It was right in front of us the whole time, and JRRT kept adding more and more clues throughout the story, and most people still didn't figure it out. Even naming the third volume "The Return of the King" -- which just might have hinted that that was an important event -- wasn't enough. Most people just wondered what in the heck that had to do with Sauron and The Ring and all.
I'm thinking that's either some seriously good writing or seriously bad writing, and it ain't bad.
-
Not to piss on anyone's parade, but I was hoping this thread would be about Tolkien's other books. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
-
And now it's time for my obligatory plug of the Tokien Professor. He does college courses on Tolkien's works and releases the audio on his site, he's got discussions on some of Tolkien's early essays and such on there. As a side note, he's a strong supporter of people reading The Silmarillion first.
https://www.tolkienprofessor.com/lectures/courses_seminars/course_sem.html
-
Not to piss on anyone's parade, but I was hoping this thread would be about Tolkien's other books. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Point goes to PC.
-
:lol
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/225859_10150186595488427_811008426_6905501_7845983_n.jpg)
guess what i just found again
-
It's fucked up, man. They printed the cover backwards or something.
-
the image is flipped
-
That's what I'm saying. You should get your money back. Either that or I was being sarcastic.
-
That's what I'm saying. You should get your money back. Either that or I was being sarcastic.
im too out of it to tell...
hhaha
-
That's what I'm saying. You should get your money back. Either that or I was being sarcastic.
:lol
-
I'm just being an ass. It always amazes me when people post pictures (not just here, but pretty much everywhere) that are reversed because they took the picture in a mirror. Every PC, including Macs, has some kind of basic software that at least lets you flip an image horizontally or vertically.
-
orbert... tis all good
-
:tup
-
With the announcement of the new Tolkien book coming out next year, I figured I'd bump this thread.
https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2016/10/20/102403-new-edition-of-tolkiens-luthien-and-beren-coming-may-2017/
-
Nice!
-
I can't believe Christopher Tolkien (his son) is 91 years old and still putting stuff together.
-
I can't believe Christopher Tolkien (his son) is 91 years old and still putting stuff together.
Milk it.
Milk it.
Maybe when he passes away, whoever takes over the estate will agree to selling film rights to The Silmarillion.
-
They remained very quiet for the longest time but then eventually tore into the film version of The Hobbit. They were less than pleased with how it was done, so I think it would take a lot of convincing to sign over film rights to The Silmarillion. But it would be glorious if it were to ever happen.
-
Well, I completely understand why they would have torn into those films.
-
I enjoy them for what they are, but they really lost the spirit of some of the characters. I think it would have been given less criticism if the embellishments were still true to the nature of Tolkien's universe. However, I feel like PJ was more concerned about the action sequences. That's not what Tolkien wrote about though. I will still watch them but would love if someone eventually did one movie, more true to the book. I'd be happy if it was animation...just not Disney. :lol
-
I've read as many of Tolkien's extant writings as I've been able to get my hands on, which is why he is one of my favorite authors. My favorite remains The Silmarillion for it's depth and intensity. And I think I would viscerally hate it if anyone got movie rights to it. Firstly, it would be an unmitigated disaster trying to turn an epic that really has no thematic plot other than history into a feature film or series, and with the way The Hobbit films were utterly bastardized in the name of cinema (don't get me started, by a third of the way through the second Hobbit film, it ceased to really be The Hobbit for me), I think I would loathe it. General Hollywood audiences would not follow 90% of the Ainulindale (creation myth) let alone the various lineages, histories, battles, and storylines that follow.
I really love how much detail went into the history of Elves and Men, and the way Tolkien was able to parallel so many things from real life into his fantasy world. He managed to weave a creation story that mirrored the biblical creation myth, but did so in a way that had no religious undertones; he likened it to music, differing themes. Evil came from dissonance, desire for power. He literally crafted an entire world, a mythology that rivals any that existed in actual history.
-
It's been about 20 years since I read the Silmarillion. I remember it being a hard slog, but it was worth it for the large chunks of great stories, like Beren & Luthien, Feanor and Melkor/Morgoth, etc. I can't see any way on (middle) earth (see what i did there? ;)) that they could make a movie out of it, and I hope they don't attempt to.
I also read the Book of Lost Tales - there's a great chapter about Gandalf convincing the dwarves to go Bag End just before the beginning of the Hobbit. I'll dip into that now and again.
The History of Middle Earth series was just a step too far for me. Too much like a text book, with so many side notes and "connective tissue" from CT.
The thing I love about Tolkien's writing is that he describes everything as if it were fact - it really happened, these were real people and places. It just has such a way of drawing you in. I'll also admit to shedding a tear when I reached the end of LOTR for the first time. :'( It's the only book that's ever made me do that..
Has anyone read some of the more obscure books like Leaf By Niggle, or The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? I'd like to pick them up at some stage.
-
I've read as many of Tolkien's extant writings as I've been able to get my hands on, which is why he is one of my favorite authors. My favorite remains The Silmarillion for it's depth and intensity. And I think I would viscerally hate it if anyone got movie rights to it. Firstly, it would be an unmitigated disaster trying to turn an epic that really has no thematic plot other than history into a feature film or series, and with the way The Hobbit films were utterly bastardized in the name of cinema (don't get me started, by a third of the way through the second Hobbit film, it ceased to really be The Hobbit for me), I think I would loathe it. General Hollywood audiences would not follow 90% of the Ainulindale (creation myth) let alone the various lineages, histories, battles, and storylines that follow.
I really love how much detail went into the history of Elves and Men, and the way Tolkien was able to parallel so many things from real life into his fantasy world. He managed to weave a creation story that mirrored the biblical creation myth, but did so in a way that had no religious undertones; he likened it to music, differing themes. Evil came from dissonance, desire for power. He literally crafted an entire world, a mythology that rivals any that existed in actual history.
It's nice to hear you're such a fan of The Silmarillion. I try to read it once every year or two and it's coming up on that time. However, I recently picked up a paperback version of Unfinished Tales (I have other versions) so I might read through that again.
I think The Silmarillion would be exceedingly hard to bring to the screen and keep the true spirit of it. Like I mentioned above with The Hobbit, I would love to see an animated version of the creation myth. I think that could be done brilliantly. Like fans did with the LOTR prequels, with better funding, one could really make something beautiful.
-
It's been about 20 years since I read the Silmarillion. I remember it being a hard slog, but it was worth it for the large chunks of great stories, like Beren & Luthien, Feanor and Melkor/Morgoth, etc. I can't see any way on (middle) earth (see what i did there? ;)) that they could make a movie out of it, and I hope they don't attempt to.
I also read the Book of Lost Tales - there's a great chapter about Gandalf convincing the dwarves to go Bag End just before the beginning of the Hobbit. I'll dip into that now and again.
The History of Middle Earth series was just a step too far for me. Too much like a text book, with so many side notes and "connective tissue" from CT.
The thing I love about Tolkien's writing is that he describes everything as if it were fact - it really happened, these were real people and places. It just has such a way of drawing you in. I'll also admit to shedding a tear when I reached the end of LOTR for the first time. :'( It's the only book that's ever made me do that..
Has anyone read some of the more obscure books like Leaf By Niggle, or The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? I'd like to pick them up at some stage.
I have read Leaf by Niggle and Tom Bombadil, but it was a long time ago.
I love The History of Middle Earth. You're right, though. It's not the easiest read because it includes lots of editorial and lost ideas.
-
I had more fun reading through the Lost Tales and the stuff that was released posthumously than some of the actual fiction because it showed how things evolved. But The Silmarillion is just so damn rich, with so many offshoots and storylines and deeper stories, like the Fall of Gondolin, Beren and Luthien, the stories with Huan, Children of Hurin...all of it. I can't believe it all came from one mind.
People are always so amazed at how small a part of Middle-earth LOTR and The Hobbit actually are.
-
One other book of his I'd like to read at some stage is this one:
(https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51s-c-HZt0L.jpg)
I read the translation by Seamus Heaney a few years ago and liked it. It would interesting to see Tolkien's take on it. (I also seem to be the only person on the planet that liked the movie The 13th Warrior, which was also based on the Beowulf story :lol)
-
The detail is massive. When I do write fantasy, Tolkien is definitely my inspiration. He will tell us about the flow of the Anduin and the snow-capped Caradhras. We'll know the names of the roads Frodo and Sam took, the color of the sky and shape of the clouds. We'll hear the sounds of the swords clashing and the intensity of a gust of wind. It's all about imagination and bringing it to life with such rich detail that we want to be there next to the hobbits eating the crispy bacon.
-
One other book of his I'd like to read at some stage is this one:
(https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51s-c-HZt0L.jpg)
I read the translation by Seamus Heaney a few years ago and liked it. It would interesting to see Tolkien's take on it. (I also seem to be the only person on the planet that liked the movie The 13th Warrior, which was also based on the Beowulf story :lol)
I love Beowulf but never read Tolkien's take on it. That's on my list of books to buy. I've never seen The 13th Warrior, but since it's based on Beowulf I'll probably check it out.
-
I wasn't aware that he did a translation (I am a LOTR fan, but not a "Tolkien fan" per se). I am curious whether his translation differs in any material respects. Given that he was a big linguistics guy as well as a gifted storyteller, I would not be surprised if he adds a different style and flair to it.
-
I've never seen The 13th Warrior, but since it's based on Beowulf I'll probably check it out.
Just bear in mind that everyone else but me seems to hate it.. :lol
-
I tend to have obscure taste, so we'll see. :)
-
I've never seen The 13th Warrior, but since it's based on Beowulf I'll probably check it out.
DON'T DO IT
-
I've never seen The 13th Warrior, but since it's based on Beowulf I'll probably check it out.
DON'T DO IT
You see? What did I tell you? :lol
-
:lol
So who is everyone's favorite non-LOTR/Hobbit character?
-
Huan or Glaurung, depending on my mood.
-
Morgoth
lol j/k
I dunno, that's a toughie.
-
Morgoth is one of my favorites. I always seem to like reading more about the villains. They always seem to be these multi-layered characters with an interesting story.
-
I always have fascinations with the massive villains like Glaurung, Carcharoth, and one of my all-time favorites, Ancalagon.
-
Those are some good choices, especially the dragons. I would love to see Morgoth and Ancalagon come to fruition in some form. We should convince Blob to create a video of them. :lol
-
I'm not even sure any sort of cinematic anything would do a creature the scale of Ancalagon justice.
(https://i.imgur.com/U3eNPvO.jpg)
-
Yeah, I'd wet myself seeing that on the big screen. :lol
Here's a great version of Ancalagon facing Earendil.
(https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/3/3e/Ancalagon_the_black_by_skyrace-d7hemcm.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140515222613)
-
I think that vastly overestimates Earendil's stature. When Ancalagon fell, he utterly destroyed all of Thangorodrim in his wake. Three full-size mountain peaks. While a gorgeous painting, the relative scale there puts him at not much larger than Smaug.
-
I'm seeing...
IMAX
-
I enjoy them for what they are, but they really lost the spirit of some of the characters. I think it would have been given less criticism if the embellishments were still true to the nature of Tolkien's universe. However, I feel like PJ was more concerned about the action sequences. That's not what Tolkien wrote about though. I will still watch them but would love if someone eventually did one movie, more true to the book. I'd be happy if it was animation...just not Disney. :lol
There's always the Rankin-Bass animated version of The Hobbit. 70's cheapo animation, and the goblins and elves look weird, but it does have the virtue of sticking closer to the book than that three-headed thing Peter Jackson did.
-
I think that vastly overestimates Earendil's stature. When Ancalagon fell, he utterly destroyed all of Thangorodrim in his wake. Three full-size mountain peaks. While a gorgeous painting, the relative scale there puts him at not much larger than Smaug.
I know. I guess the artist did his best to get them in the same drawing without making Earendil the size of a gnat. :lol
IMAX
I'm seeing my geek brain overloading. :biggrin:
I enjoy them for what they are, but they really lost the spirit of some of the characters. I think it would have been given less criticism if the embellishments were still true to the nature of Tolkien's universe. However, I feel like PJ was more concerned about the action sequences. That's not what Tolkien wrote about though. I will still watch them but would love if someone eventually did one movie, more true to the book. I'd be happy if it was animation...just not Disney. :lol
There's always the Rankin-Bass animated version of The Hobbit. 70's cheapo animation, and the goblins and elves look weird, but it does have the virtue of sticking closer to the book than that three-headed thing Peter Jackson did.
My father showed me that when I was younger. It was so cool watching it back then, especially right after reading the book. He wouldn't let me watch the cartoon until I read the book. I still watch it from time to time.
-
I may have missed this in the earlier parts of the thread because I didn't read back, but what did you think of Bakshi's film?
-
I only saw it once. I wasn't too impressed with it but it certainly wasn't as bad as everybody makes it out to be. I was warned not to waste my money. :lol However, I'm a completist, so I had to buy it and watch it. What about you?
-
I honestly haven't weatched it all in one pass. It doesn't hold my interest, oddly enough. I think I'm turned off by the animation style and it hurts my focus. I've watched it in stages and never really feel the pull to watch it all at once. Also, knowing it isn't the full story kinda fucks it right there.
-
It covers the the first two books and a sequel was never made. Rankin/Bass did an unofficial sequel called Return of the King.
-
Rotoscope, baby.
-
I like what Bakshi attempted, but the film was not finished when it was released, and it shows. The rotoscoped orcs are the most obvious offenders. I think they applied some kind of tinting to them to make it about 2% less obvious. And of course, he only finished the first part and never got any funding for the rest because the first part was rushed to release. But in general, I like Bakshi's animation style and would have loved to have seen it done properly.
-
Has anyone read The Children of Hurin? Is it basically an expanded version of the story of Turin Turambar from The Silmarillion?
-
I read it years ago when it first came out. I was excited to get some "new" Tolkien to read, and it' pretty good, but it's much smaller story.
I don't want to say that it lack the grand scale of Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion, because that's obvious, or that it "suffered" for it, because that's not really fair. But it's really more for people who just can't get enough Tolkien. He has a certain writing style, which is fine, but it's really just another story, just a fleshing out of a concept from something else, for people who just can't get enough Tolkien. I don't remember any truly epic scenes, like The Bridge of Khazad-dûm and the balrog, or The Battle of Helm's Deep, or anything like that. And I haven't read it since. Nothing wrong with it; I just don't feel like "Man, that was a great book! I'll read it again."
-
Yes I read it when it came out – the story is already a part of The Silmarillion, it just goes into deeper detail. It's one of my favorite subplots of the mythology.
-
Cool. Doesn't sound like a must read. I'll maybe pick it up if I run out of other stuff.
I don't remember any truly epic scenes, like The Bridge of Khazad-dûm and the balrog, or The Battle of Helm's Deep, or anything like that. And I haven't read it since. Nothing wrong with it; I just don't feel like "Man, that was a great book! I'll read it again."
Funny you should mention The Bridge of Khazad-dûm. I was reading that chapter on the train this morning on the way into work. It was one of those few occasions you wish your commute was actually longer!
-
I loved The Children of Hurin. It's nowhere near as great as Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion but it's definitely something you should eventually pick up.
A lot of people think that Lord of the Rings is technically a trilogy. Tolkien was pretty adamant about it not being called that. In his eyes, it's one book broken into six parts.
-
I don't remember any truly epic scenes, like The Bridge of Khazad-dûm and the balrog, or The Battle of Helm's Deep, or anything like that. And I haven't read it since. Nothing wrong with it; I just don't feel like "Man, that was a great book! I'll read it again."
Funny you should mention The Bridge of Khazad-dûm. I was reading that chapter on the train this morning on the way into work. It was one of those few occasions you wish your commute was actually longer!
:tup
-
I loved The Children of Hurin. It's nowhere near as great as Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion but it's definitely something you should eventually pick up.
A lot of people think that Lord of the Rings is technically a trilogy. Tolkien was pretty adamant about it not being called that. In his eyes, it's one book broken into six parts.
Yeah, I think the split was forced on him by the publishers, as they weren't able to deal with the sheer size of the text. When I first read it, I bought the all in one edition (with John Howe's Gandalf on the cover) so I've never really thought of it as 3 separate parts anyway.
Maybe the Children of Hurin has potential then. I think I was assuming it was another of these "history" type books with lots of side notes to fill in the gaps. That would have put me off.
-
Not at all. It's written as a regular novel.
-
When I read LOTR the first time, I already struggled with the vast number of people and place names. Some point later I then tried the Silmarillion, but that was LOTR on steroids in that regard. Never made any significant headway into it.
-
Totally understandable. My first couple of times through LOTR, I didn't memorize/learn all the place names as they came up. It was more like, when place names come up, see if it looks familiar, try to remember, skip back in the book to where I saw it before, oh yeah, those guys. The Silmarilion, being written in the style of an actual history book, even moreso. But I read them anyway, multiple times, because the writing style and the characters are so cool. Eventually, I got to where I know pretty much all the names and places in LOTR.
-
Peter Jackson should film that lesser known book " Broke Back Mount Doom ".
-
When I read LOTR the first time, I already struggled with the vast number of people and place names. Some point later I then tried the Silmarillion, but that was LOTR on steroids in that regard. Never made any significant headway into it.
My father has LOTR, Hobbit, The Sil, and Unfinished Tales. After I read LOTR and The Hobbit, I wanted to read The Silmarillion. He made a face and said that it's not an easy read because of the many names and the Ainulindale. I wasn't even a teenager yet so I guess he thought it would be too much, but he didn't realize that I had already read War and Peace, Les Miserables, and Canterbury Tales. The Silmarillion wasn't that hard, especially in comparison to those. I actually gravitate towards more complex stories to see what makes them as such. I have Clarissa waiting for me once I finish taking my test on the 30th.
-
I found the article where Christopher Tolkien expressed his contempt for what Peter Jackson did to the movies. It's a long article, but if you just want to read the few sentences about what he said, scroll down to the last few paragraphs.
https://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/my-father039s-quotevisceratedquot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-jrr-tolkien-finally-speaks-out
-
Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
He was wrong about that - The Hobbit was far far worse. :lol
"The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialisation has reduced the esthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away."
I get where he's coming from, but I don't think he would really have been happy with any adaptation, in any form. I do think that the LOTR movie was actually very respectful of the book. Far more so than The Hobbit.
BTW, I did buy this, which I'll probably get to right after finishing LOTR: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Perilous-Realm-Roverandom-Classic/dp/0007280599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480072794&sr=8-1&keywords=tales+from+the+perilous+realm
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dOPIpSXML._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
He was wrong about that - The Hobbit was far far worse. :lol
Yeah... they really killed the Tolkien mood with that one. My brother, a lifelong fan, refused to see the rest of the movies after seeing the first one. I mean, that's a bit sad for someone. You love something so much and you're excited to see it on the big screen and the disappointment is so palpable you lose all interest.
I get where he's coming from, but I don't think he would really have been happy with any adaptation, in any form. I do think that the LOTR movie was actually very respectful of the book. Far more so than The Hobbit.
BTW, I did buy this, which I'll probably get to right after finishing LOTR: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Perilous-Realm-Roverandom-Classic/dp/0007280599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480072794&sr=8-1&keywords=tales+from+the+perilous+realm
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dOPIpSXML._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I don't think it's too hard to follow the atmosphere of the story without turning it into a CGI assault. Don't get me wrong. I do like the movies for what they are and enjoy them because it's based on Tolkien, but The Hobbit as a tribute to the books was a disappointment. They took a book that's one third the size of LOTR and made into three movies. :yeahright
In LOTR, they turned Frodo into a whiny bitch. The main fucking character and you couldn't even get his personality right. That kind of pissed me off, but they are still three awesome movies for many other reasons.
There are some things in LOTR that they changed and I was alright with. For example, introducing Arwen as the one who helps Frodo instead of Glorfindel. I was a bit disappointed with it but I think they wanted to bring her into the story so they can give her and Aragorn their backstory as opposed to halfway through the movies and suddenly he has a love interest. You know?
And...where was Tom Bombadil?? :biggrin:
-
I think I can just about forgive them for leaving out TB. I suppose it's the same with some of the other quirky elements, like the songs and poems, which work ok on the page, and are part of the charm of the book, but would just seem totally weird and distracting onscreen.
I agree about the character of Frodo - he seems a lot more feeble onscreen than in the book. They got the character of Sam down a lot better, IMO. I didn't like Galadriel's transformation into the evil witch queen thing. That was the first part that made me cringe and took me right out of the movie - in the book it was a lot more subtle.
With the Hobbit, I think it started ok, but it took a real turn for the worse around the CGI-fest that happened in the Great Goblin's kingdom. I think I've said this before, but the worst part in the whole trilogy for me was Dain Ironfoot - terrible terrible terrible. They made him into a total pig-riding CGI buffoon.
Getting back on topic (sort of) - I see that Christopher Tolkien turned 92 a couple of days ago. Do you think the family's position will soften on releasing the right for future movie deals when he passes? I kind of hope not..
-
I seriously hope the family keeps the lock on the rights. Current generations should gain love of Tolkien through his words, not the Hollywood bastardizations of his stories. As great as the original trilogy is as an adaptation, it is NOT the same as the book, and, either by necessity or poetic license, does omit/change details. As for The Hobbit, forget it. Like John said, as a Tolkien-based piece I can watch and enjoy, sort of, bit it's a blatant departure from almost the entire story, with major plot and thematic changes.
There were only a few changes about the original trilogy that irked me. I was ok with the absence of the Borrow-wights, Old Man Willow, and TB. Without the written word, it would have taken too much exposition to explain them to the lay audience.
The swap of Glorfindel with Arwen didn't bother me much, but I have to say the overall reliance on Arwen's diminishing and their love as a plot device was a bit much.
Totally agreed about Frodo's character. He was not the whiny pissant be was portrayed as, and the "love" between him and Sam was actually one born of tremendous respect and loyalty, but the on-screen portrayal bordered on romance.
Probably the most egregious change for me was Faramir's character. He is completely benevolent in the book, while his initial antagonism in the movie not only warps him at first, but also results in an unnecessary confrontation at Osgilliath whereby Sam has to once again prevent Frodo from being a pathetic loser by giving up. Only then does the cinematic Faramir see the forest for the trees, and I still don't see why that conflict was necessary.
Those are relatively minor gripes, in my opinion, compared to the slutjob done to the Hobbit, though.
-
Current generations should gain love of Tolkien through his words, not the Hollywood bastardizations of his stories.
100% agree with that.
Probably the most egregious change for me was Faramir's character. He is completely benevolent in the book, while his initial antagonism in the movie not only warps him at first, but also results in an unnecessary confrontation at Osgilliath whereby Sam has to once again prevent Frodo from being a pathetic loser by giving up. Only then does the cinematic Faramir see the forest for the trees, and I still don't see why that conflict was necessary.
You're right about Faramir - I'd almost forgotten about that. I suppose they were trying to give him some sort of character arc, but he did come across as a lot less friendly than book Faramir.
Actually, just thinking about it, one other atrocity served up by The Hobbit movie was what they did with Radagast The Brown. He was one of my favourite minor characters from the book, and one that I always found intriguing. Such a disappointment to see him turned into yet another comic relief character. Rabbit sleigh? Seriously?
-
First, I just wanted to say I love being able to discuss Tolkien with people who are obviously genuine fans of the master.
Second...just a few comments. :biggrin:
I think I can just about forgive them for leaving out TB. I suppose it's the same with some of the other quirky elements, like the songs and poems, which work ok on the page, and are part of the charm of the book, but would just seem totally weird and distracting onscreen.
I love that they included the two songs in The Hobbit - Blunt the Knives and Misty Mountains. I also love the Green Dragon song Merry and Pippin sing in Return of the King.
I didn't like Galadriel's transformation into the evil witch queen thing. That was the first part that made me cringe and took me right out of the movie - in the book it was a lot more subtle.
Agreed. I think it was blatantly overdone. I love Cate Blanchett. She's uniquely beautiful and I love Galadriel's character. However, do you think she was the best choice for that role?
With the Hobbit, I think it started ok, but it took a real turn for the worse around the CGI-fest that happened in the Great Goblin's kingdom. I think I've said this before, but the worst part in the whole trilogy for me was Dain Ironfoot - terrible terrible terrible. They made him into a total pig-riding CGI buffoon.
The Shire scenes are some of the highlights of both trilogies. I just love how they live. It's a beautiful and peaceful place and what the hobbits represent in the grand scheme of things is so overlooked by many people.
Getting back on topic (sort of) - I see that Christopher Tolkien turned 92 a couple of days ago. Do you think the family's position will soften on releasing the right for future movie deals when he passes? I kind of hope not..
I seriously hope the family keeps the lock on the rights. Current generations should gain love of Tolkien through his words, not the Hollywood bastardizations of his stories. As great as the original trilogy is as an adaptation, it is NOT the same as the book, and, either by necessity or poetic license, does omit/change details. As for The Hobbit, forget it. Like John said, as a Tolkien-based piece I can watch and enjoy, sort of, bit it's a blatant departure from almost the entire story, with major plot and thematic changes.
I guess we would have to see who is next on the list and what their stance has been in the past. It would be so nice to see some of The Silmarillion done but it would be exceedingly difficult to get right.
There were only a few changes about the original trilogy that irked me. I was ok with the absence of the Borrow-wights, Old Man Willow, and TB. Without the written word, it would have taken too much exposition to explain them to the lay audience.
The swap of Glorfindel with Arwen didn't bother me much, but I have to say the overall reliance on Arwen's diminishing and their love as a plot device was a bit much.
I understand their reasons for not including what you mentioned. However, there is a scene with Old Man Willow in the extended editions. I would have loved to see how the Barrow-wights were done on the screen.
From what I read, the studio pushed PJ to give more attention to the love story. I think I believe that. PJ was always vocal for the changes he made and why he did it, so I don't think it's him shifting blame to save face.
Totally agreed about Frodo's character. He was not the whiny pissant be was portrayed as, and the "love" between him and Sam was actually one born of tremendous respect and loyalty, but the on-screen portrayal bordered on romance.
I enjoyed that closeness between Frodo and Sam. I guess to some it borderlined on being seen as a bit on the gay side, but I think that's just because many people are too uneasy admitting something like that was touching.
Probably the most egregious change for me was Faramir's character. He is completely benevolent in the book, while his initial antagonism in the movie not only warps him at first, but also results in an unnecessary confrontation at Osgilliath whereby Sam has to once again prevent Frodo from being a pathetic loser by giving up. Only then does the cinematic Faramir see the forest for the trees, and I still don't see why that conflict was necessary.
I concur. That was just a wasted plot device. That's time that could have went towards Ghan-Buri-Ghan or someone else. Tom Bombadil
-
First, I just wanted to say I love being able to discuss Tolkien with people who are obviously genuine fans of the master.
Yeah, it's nice to dig into some of this stuff that would otherwise bore the life out of friends and coworkers :lol
I love Cate Blanchett. She's uniquely beautiful and I love Galadriel's character. However, do you think she was the best choice for that role?
Personally I thought she was spot on for the role. I can't think anyone better for it right now. I just think they got the tone of her character slightly wrong in parts. She seemed a lot more menacing and morally ambiguous in the movie than in the book. It was maybe the slowed down dialogue, or the sudden closeups ("Welcome Frodo, one who has seen THE EYE"), that made her seem quite harsh. In the book you get a sense of her power, but it was very subtly done. It was harder then to reconcile that harsh tone with Gimli's almost infatuation with her ("I have looked last upon that which is fairest"). I think the EE helped a little to smooth that over, especially with the gift giving scenes.
Totally agreed about Frodo's character. He was not the whiny pissant be was portrayed as, and the "love" between him and Sam was actually one born of tremendous respect and loyalty, but the on-screen portrayal bordered on romance.
I enjoyed that closeness between Frodo and Sam. I guess to some it borderlined on being seen as a bit on the gay side, but I think that's just because many people are too uneasy admitting something like that was touching.
I think this one is widely misunderstood. The relationship between Frodo and Sam mirrors the relationship between an officer in the British army in WWII and his "batman", which JRRT would have been very familiar with.
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Samwise_Gamgee#Commentary
-
I think Cate is very pretty, too, but it's a very subdued, elegant beauty, not the kind that just blows you away on first glance. I didn't think she was right for Galadriel because Galadriel was supposed to be that absolute epitome of beauty, such that anyone from any of Middle-earth's peoples (elves, dwarves, hobbits, men) just go "My God, what a beautiful lady!" the moment they lay eyes on her. But I'm sure people who do find Cate to be the absolute epitome of beauty thought she was great. Either way, I agree that that "dark" scene of hers was over the top.
I get the relationship between Frodo and Sam, and in the U.S. armed forces there's a similar relationship between an officer and his sergeant. I think of Sean Connery and Jack Warden in The Presidio. A very close relationship based on 100% trust and respect. It's just that in the LOTR films, it came across as a bit more than that. Connery and Warden, being "manly men" could literally profess their love for each other (spoiler: they do not) and it would be seen as platonic and heterosexual all the way. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin did not have the gravitas or whatever it takes to get that across. People from everywhere on the spectrum picked up a vibe, so even if it is a misinterpretation of their relationship, it's at least partly the fault of the acting and directing if that many people picked it up.
-
One of the things that irks me personally, though I admit maybe only really diehard Tolkien fans would notice it, let alone be bothered by it, is the disappearance of the 17 years between Bilbo's departure from the Shire and Frodo's departure. While in reality it makes little difference to the movie narrative of the original trilogy, it allows for a massive plot fuckup (in my opinion, which I know is probably unpopular didn't this being overwhelongly nitpicky) at the end of the Hobbit films.
Near the conclusion of the Hobbit films, Thranduil enigmatically tells Legolas to go pursue Aragorn, only hinting at his importance, and only calling him a ranger named Strider. In real Tolkien history, at the time of the Battle of Five Armies, Aragorn was still a child living in Rivendell, and only Elrond knew of his lineage. As such, he had not yet left to become a Ranger, and no one could have known of his actual importance yet, certainly not Thranduil.
Without those 17 years, it is suddenly possible for Thranduil to potentially possibly know, although if memory serves me correctly, Legolas had never met or known if Aragorn prior to the Council of Elrond, which is another hole.
Yes I'm aware this is nitpicky and that the last majority of moviegoers won't know or care, and that it allows for some sort of continuity between the movies. But also, Legolas wasn't a named part of the Hobbit to begin with, so in the end the whole thing breaks down from a purist's viewpoint.
-
The 17 years didn't bother me as much as Thranduil's lines at the end of The Hobbit. It was just one more way for PJ to link the two trilogies together, and it was completely unnecessary.
What bugged me even more was that in the book, Strider spends a fair amount of time as Strider, a mysterious Ranger who seems to be helping them out, but could easily have his own agenda. We don't know. They're much farther along in the adventure before he is revealed to be Aragorn. In the movie, he's Strider for about five seconds and then it's basically "But you can call me Aragorn. I'm the king, returned, you see, but let's not tell anyone, okay?"
-
I used to gobble up every new "Tolkien" book, but recently I've stopped feeling it to be necessary. Seems like Christopher has ran out of documents to recover, and now he's taken to republishing stories in the Silmarillion as neat little standalone novels, complete with the obligatory Alan Lee illustrations. Not that I'm against the guy making a buck, per se, but there was a time when I was actively excited about these publications. Not anymore.
Could be worse, though. As others have noted, Christopher and the family have done a good job maintaining the quality of the material that is out there. They have managed to not let it be watered down at all. It could be far worse. They could be enlisting Kevin J. Anderson to write up sequel and prequel trilogies. So I guess we can be thankful for that.
-
The 17 years didn't bother me as much as Thranduil's lines at the end of The Hobbit. It was just one more way for PJ to link the two trilogies together, and it was completely unnecessary.
What bugged me even more was that in the book, Strider spends a fair amount of time as Strider, a mysterious Ranger who seems to be helping them out, but could easily have his own agenda. We don't know. They're much farther along in the adventure before he is revealed to be Aragorn. In the movie, he's Strider for about five seconds and then it's basically "But you can call me Aragorn. I'm the king, returned, you see, but let's not tell anyone, okay?"
The 17 years were a non issue until Thranduils lines, to be honest. Only then did their significance come into play for me.
There were a lot of things that I think were "sacrificed", for lack of a better word, in order to not lose or confuse the lay audience. Granted I don't really know what extending the anonymity of Aragorn would have hurt, but some things I can excuse. The things that really pissed me off were things that fundamentally changed the Tolkien universe or mythology.
I just find it so enthralling that one man's personal creative obsession ws so involved, so developed, and so compelling that it almost becomes like researching a real history. I'm also slightly envious of Tolkien's creative depth and dedication to build something so monumental.
-
I love Cate Blanchett. She's uniquely beautiful and I love Galadriel's character. However, do you think she was the best choice for that role?
Personally I thought she was spot on for the role. I can't think anyone better for it right now. I just think they got the tone of her character slightly wrong in parts. She seemed a lot more menacing and morally ambiguous in the movie than in the book. It was maybe the slowed down dialogue, or the sudden closeups ("Welcome Frodo, one who has seen THE EYE"), that made her seem quite harsh. In the book you get a sense of her power, but it was very subtly done. It was harder then to reconcile that harsh tone with Gimli's almost infatuation with her ("I have looked last upon that which is fairest"). I think the EE helped a little to smooth that over, especially with the gift giving scenes.
That's what I was feeling. Those close-ups and vocal fluctuations made her seem like someone off their rocker. I did not get that all-powerful sense from her...for the most part.
I think this one is widely misunderstood. The relationship between Frodo and Sam mirrors the relationship between an officer in the British army in WWII and his "batman", which JRRT would have been very familiar with.
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Samwise_Gamgee#Commentary
Thanks for the link. I never read that before, though I've been on that site multiple times.
I think Cate is very pretty, too, but it's a very subdued, elegant beauty, not the kind that just blows you away on first glance. I didn't think she was right for Galadriel because Galadriel was supposed to be that absolute epitome of beauty, such that anyone from any of Middle-earth's peoples (elves, dwarves, hobbits, men) just go "My God, what a beautiful lady!" the moment they lay eyes on her. But I'm sure people who do find Cate to be the absolute epitome of beauty thought she was great. Either way, I agree that that "dark" scene of hers was over the top.
Agreed. I think there were better choices for her role as far as finding someone with that absolute beauty and, like I said above, emanating that sense of power.
I get the relationship between Frodo and Sam, and in the U.S. armed forces there's a similar relationship between an officer and his sergeant. I think of Sean Connery and Jack Warden in The Presidio. A very close relationship based on 100% trust and respect. It's just that in the LOTR films, it came across as a bit more than that. Connery and Warden, being "manly men" could literally profess their love for each other (spoiler: they do not) and it would be seen as platonic and heterosexual all the way. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin did not have the gravitas or whatever it takes to get that across. People from everywhere on the spectrum picked up a vibe, so even if it is a misinterpretation of their relationship, it's at least partly the fault of the acting and directing if that many people picked it up.
I don't necessarily blame it on the acting/directing. The characters were like that in the book. They portrayed that closeness exceedingly well. I don't think it was as much an misinterpretation of their relationship as it was an inability to understand how men can feel that closeness as friends without it automatically being considered gay.
One of the things that irks me personally, though I admit maybe only really diehard Tolkien fans would notice it, let alone be bothered by it, is the disappearance of the 17 years between Bilbo's departure from the Shire and Frodo's departure. While in reality it makes little difference to the movie narrative of the original trilogy, it allows for a massive plot fuckup (in my opinion, which I know is probably unpopular didn't this being overwhelongly nitpicky) at the end of the Hobbit films.
Near the conclusion of the Hobbit films, Thranduil enigmatically tells Legolas to go pursue Aragorn, only hinting at his importance, and only calling him a ranger named Strider. In real Tolkien history, at the time of the Battle of Five Armies, Aragorn was still a child living in Rivendell, and only Elrond knew of his lineage. As such, he had not yet left to become a Ranger, and no one could have known of his actual importance yet, certainly not Thranduil.
Without those 17 years, it is suddenly possible for Thranduil to potentially possibly know, although if memory serves me correctly, Legolas had never met or known if Aragorn prior to the Council of Elrond, which is another hole.
Yes I'm aware this is nitpicky and that the last majority of moviegoers won't know or care, and that it allows for some sort of continuity between the movies. But also, Legolas wasn't a named part of the Hobbit to begin with, so in the end the whole thing breaks down from a purist's viewpoint.
Aragorn was 10 during the Battle of the Five Armies, so you're right. Elrond didn't tell him about his heritage until he was in his 20s so there's no way for Thranduil to have known about him, unless it was something the two leaders exchanged with each other during a meeting. That's not documented, as far as I know, so it's a mistake on PJ's part.
It is possible that Aragorn met Legolas before the Council of Elrond. Remember, Aragorn brought Gollum to Mirkwood after he captured him and asked Thranduil to hold him captive. It's possible Legolas met him then.
I just find it so enthralling that one man's personal creative obsession ws so involved, so developed, and so compelling that it almost becomes like researching a real history. I'm also slightly envious of Tolkien's creative depth and dedication to build something so monumental.
I have the same thoughts. It makes you wonder just how much more he contemplated before coming up with what we read in the books. How many characters did he remove? How many plot lines did he abandon? How far into the Fourth Age did he write about?
-
Is their any evidence he wrote into the Fourth Age?
-
All I've seen are random details about the first couple of hundred years.
-
It'd be interesting to read those. In fact, much more interesting than what Christopher has been spending the last 10 years or so publishing, so I'm thinking there probably isn't enough written down to warrant a release.
-
What I do know is that the Fourth Age speaks about Aragorn's rule, his children, his death, and Arwen's death. It talks about what became of some of the members of the fellowship. I don't know if any of the books in the History of Middle Earth delves into the Fourth Age at all. I was seriously considering starting my fantasy world as a sort of continuation of that age. Not using Tolkien's characters, but my own, and having that same aura. When you think about it, there are a lot of fantasy books inspired by Tolkien, but how many have that same aura? It really is quite unique.
-
It is possible that Aragorn met Legolas before the Council of Elrond. Remember, Aragorn brought Gollum to Mirkwood after he captured him and asked Thranduil to hold him captive. It's possible Legolas met him then.
You're probably right, though it is still unknown, to my knowledge, if Legolas knew him as anyone other than a Ranger from the North. They could have met and Legolas not known his true bloodline. The movie scene at the Council of Elrond certainly makes it appear as if Legolas knows this, but I do not believe such an exchange is in the text. It all comes down to only a very select few knowing of Aragorn's bloodline.
I might be mistaken, but isn't the majority of Tolkien's work on the Fourth Age contained with the appendices of LotR?
-
It is possible that Aragorn met Legolas before the Council of Elrond. Remember, Aragorn brought Gollum to Mirkwood after he captured him and asked Thranduil to hold him captive. It's possible Legolas met him then.
You're probably right, though it is still unknown, to my knowledge, if Legolas knew him as anyone other than a Ranger from the North. They could have met and Legolas not known his true bloodline. The movie scene at the Council of Elrond certainly makes it appear as if Legolas knows this, but I do not believe such an exchange is in the text. It all comes down to only a very select few knowing of Aragorn's bloodline.
I might be mistaken, but isn't the majority of Tolkien's work on the Fourth Age contained with the appendices of LotR?
Pretty much. Though I am unsure of just how much is in ancillary sources.
As far as the Legolas/Aragorn thing, I don't know at what point Legolas found out about Aragorn. Perhaps the answer is in the Council of Elrond chapter in Fellowship. That is one of my favorite chapters in all of Tolkien's books just for the fact that there is so much information in it.
-
I skimmed over The Council of Elrond chapter. In the book, it's Elrond that makes the announcement about Strider's true lineage. In the movie it's Legolas that says something like "This is no mere Ranger...". Book Legolas doesn't really have much to say for himself in that chapter.
That's a great chapter - so much back story is filled in, such as Gandalf explaining where he's been for those missing years between Bilbo's 111th birthday and Frodo setting off. (I agree that period of time seemed far too short in the movie.) You really start to get a sense of the size and hopelessness of the task in front of them.
One other thing that slightly annoyed me was the mistrust and animosity between Legolas and Gimli was played up for the movie, but it really isn't anything like that in the book. There's no Legolas eye roll when Gimli joins the Fellowship, for example.
I suppose it's back to this thing of dramatically emphasising things for the screen that were initially only subtly mentioned details in the book.
-
I am going to read through this: https://smile.amazon.com/Return-Shadow-History-Rings-Middle-Earth/dp/061808357X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480332899&sr=8-1&keywords=Tolkien+return+of+the+shadow
It's part of the History Of Middle Earth series but it's during the time of Fellowship. There could be more details about Strider/Aragorn and maybe some other things. I've had it on my to-read list for a while now. I saw it yesterday when I was cleaning and said that I have to read it soon. So, after my test Wednesday I am going to crack it open and see what I find.
-
Holy shit. I was just reading the description for part 12 in the History of Middle-Earth. It includes two abandoned stories. One of which is called, The New Shadow, which is set in the Fourth Age! Now I have to buy this one, like, right now! :blob:
https://smile.amazon.com/Peoples-Middle-Earth-History-Book-12/dp/0261103482/ref=pd_sim_14_6?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=57NTGE524F3CQGVJ87C7
-
Interesting, though unfortunately it seems like it's pretty short - only 13 pages. https://www.tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_New_Shadow
Is there any aspect of ME that you wish that Tolkien has written more on, or developed further? For me, the Istari always intrigued me. I would love to read an "origin story" on them - why did the Valar send them? What were their first missions? What about the two blue wizards that we don't hear much about?
-
More about the Kingdoms of Men that Sauron corrupted. They feel a lot like bogeymen without much motivation, and I'd be interested as to how Sauron got to them. Did they try to resist, but failed? Where there noble men amongst them who just couldn't do enough?
-
I'm ashamed to say I never finished The History boxed set. I borrowed it from a friend and only got a few volumes in before having to return it to him. It's been one of those "I really need to do this but not right now" things for years.
-
Interesting, though unfortunately it seems like it's pretty short - only 13 pages. https://www.tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_New_Shadow
Is there any aspect of ME that you wish that Tolkien has written more on, or developed further? For me, the Istari always intrigued me. I would love to read an "origin story" on them - why did the Valar send them? What were their first missions? What about the two blue wizards that we don't hear much about?
Yes. I've always wondered what his intentions were with the Blue Wizards. Did he introduce them just to invite intrigue or did he eventually plan on giving them more of a background. We do know why the Istari were sent as a whole. I think that's discussed in The Silmarillion. They were sent to assist men and elves against evil.
-
More specifically, they were a direct response by the Valar to the continued corrupting presence of Sauron in Middle-earth. I always found it interesting how the only Istari whose fates we really know are Saruman (death) and Gandalf (into the West). By extrapolation, one would assume with Sauron's ultimate vanquishing, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando would also diminish into the West as well, considering their reason for being was also now gone. If memory serves me correctly, which admittedly is hearkening back many years to my last reading of it, I believe the only information regarding Radagast's future was that he wandered into the East, I had thought. Perhaps I am wrong and am thinking of the Blue Wizards.
I also wonder if Tolkien ever meant to elaborate further on the Eastern and Southern lands, beyond Mordor, such as Rhun and Khand. They only get passing references with regards to the Easterlings and various other Wild Men among other things, and it fuels my curiosity of, should he have lived another decade or so, would Tolkien have further enlarged his world, or simply further elaborated on what was already written.
-
You guys have inspired me to read through all of Tolkien's works again, starting with the Silmarillion. Admittedly, the only time I ever read his non-Hobbit/LOTR books was years ago when I was in high school, and that was more of a cursory read through, and I didn't retain any of the information.
As for more of Tolkien's works being made into movies, from memory, the Silmarillion wouldn't work as a movie, but rather sections of it could, like say the tale of Beren and Luthien, or the Fall of Gondolin.
-
The thing with the Silmarillion is that is not really a narrative; its a history. There might be a beginning and an "end" so to speak, but the conflict and resolution is multifaceted, incredibly complicated, and layered. Every element builds on what precedes it and subsequently influences what follows. The emphasis on lineage and language would render it almost impossible to reduce to a layman's understanding for the average audience. I believe it would be absolutely amazing to be able to witness recreations of some of the scenes on the big screen, but I seriously question anyone's ability to condense any part of it down to a feature-length piece, even in trilogy form.
But seriously, an on-screen adaptation of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the Fall of Gondolin, or the War of Wrath would be mindblowing, as would the battle between Huan and Carcharoth and many other conflicts.
-
Yeah, I don't think it would work in any way as a traditional film. Those scenes you mentioned would be glorious (IMAX 3D!), but other stuff wouldn't work as well.
If someone could come up with a non-traditional way to do it, that would be fantastic. But I doubt very seriously that those rights ever become available.
-
More specifically, they were a direct response by the Valar to the continued corrupting presence of Sauron in Middle-earth. I always found it interesting how the only Istari whose fates we really know are Saruman (death) and Gandalf (into the West). By extrapolation, one would assume with Sauron's ultimate vanquishing, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando would also diminish into the West as well, considering their reason for being was also now gone. If memory serves me correctly, which admittedly is hearkening back many years to my last reading of it, I believe the only information regarding Radagast's future was that he wandered into the East, I had thought. Perhaps I am wrong and am thinking of the Blue Wizards.
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2014/12/10/wizards/
Interesting link about the Istari. By the sounds of it, Tolkien regarded Gandalf as the only one out of the five that succeeded in his mission. It seems that Radagast became too enamored with the birds and beasts of Middle Earth, and actually failed his mission, whatever it originally was. Doesn't seem like Tolkien mapped out much of the story of the two blues, but somehow that makes them more intriguing.
I also wondered about the other groups of Men, like the Haradim and the Corsairs of Umbar. They aren't fleshed out too much, but there is bound to be a whole lot of history between them and the people of Gondor.
BTW, I love how Tolkien makes real characters out of some of the creatures in Middle Earth, like Gwaihir, Ungoliant, Shelob, etc. JRR definitely had something against spiders!
Agreed on the Silmarillion as a movie. I don't know how you could craft any kind of 'conventional' story arc out of it.
You guys have inspired me to read through all of Tolkien's works again, starting with the Silmarillion. Admittedly, the only time I ever read his non-Hobbit/LOTR books was years ago when I was in high school, and that was more of a cursory read through, and I didn't retain any of the information.
Great stuff! Happy reading! I'm still on my re-read of LOTR, but am loving being back in that world again.
-
Tolkien's character development is almost second to no one. Nearly every character, major or minor, has a traceable lineage, definitive history, naming convention common with his origins, and it is all consistent. I could spend hours thumbing through the appendices of the Silmarillion, flipping back and forth between it, the story, and the various family trees associated with it. Everything is mapped out, the timelines are coherent and cohesive, the relationships all plausible, and he managed to do it all without seeming like he stole an idea from anyone or anything. He built on his passions of linguistics and mythology and created something literally out of this world. It's staggering.
-
More specifically, they were a direct response by the Valar to the continued corrupting presence of Sauron in Middle-earth. I always found it interesting how the only Istari whose fates we really know are Saruman (death) and Gandalf (into the West). By extrapolation, one would assume with Sauron's ultimate vanquishing, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando would also diminish into the West as well, considering their reason for being was also now gone. If memory serves me correctly, which admittedly is hearkening back many years to my last reading of it, I believe the only information regarding Radagast's future was that he wandered into the East, I had thought. Perhaps I am wrong and am thinking of the Blue Wizards.
It was just the Blue Wizards that wandered into the east. Radagast lived near Mirkwood for a time and grew close with the animals there, especially the eagles.
The thing with the Silmarillion is that is not really a narrative; its a history. There might be a beginning and an "end" so to speak, but the conflict and resolution is multifaceted, incredibly complicated, and layered. Every element builds on what precedes it and subsequently influences what follows. The emphasis on lineage and language would render it almost impossible to reduce to a layman's understanding for the average audience. I believe it would be absolutely amazing to be able to witness recreations of some of the scenes on the big screen, but I seriously question anyone's ability to condense any part of it down to a feature-length piece, even in trilogy form.
But seriously, an on-screen adaptation of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the Fall of Gondolin, or the War of Wrath would be mindblowing, as would the battle between Huan and Carcharoth and many other conflicts.
Yeah, I don't think it would work in any way as a traditional film. Those scenes you mentioned would be glorious (IMAX 3D!), but other stuff wouldn't work as well.
If someone could come up with a non-traditional way to do it, that would be fantastic. But I doubt very seriously that those rights ever become available.
Seeing those events in 3D would be GLORIOUS. You're both right though. It would never work as a traditional film. However, and I think I mentioned this earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing some of those stories produced through high quality animation. Imagine how intriguing it would be to turn the Ainulindale into some dark Nightmare Before Christmas type creation as it takes us through the early days of Middle Earth.
Tolkien's character development is almost second to no one. Nearly every character, major or minor, has a traceable lineage, definitive history, naming convention common with his origins, and it is all consistent. I could spend hours thumbing through the appendices of the Silmarillion, flipping back and forth between it, the story, and the various family trees associated with it. Everything is mapped out, the timelines are coherent and cohesive, the relationships all plausible, and he managed to do it all without seeming like he stole an idea from anyone or anything. He built on his passions of linguistics and mythology and created something literally out of this world. It's staggering.
That is what I'm slowly doing. Maybe I'll never make the attempt to publish what I'm doing but I do find it interesting and exciting to create a whole world of characters.
-
That is what I'm slowly doing. Maybe I'll never make the attempt to publish what I'm doing but I do find it interesting and exciting to create a whole world of characters.
Cool - do you think we'll get a chance to read any of your stuff?
-
That is what I'm slowly doing. Maybe I'll never make the attempt to publish what I'm doing but I do find it interesting and exciting to create a whole world of characters.
Approximately how much work have you done outside your "main story?" I'm doing the same thing, creating thousands of years of history, flesh out some major characters/hero(ines) of the past, different cultures, I've even created the basis of a very simplistic language (I took a couple linguistic classes in university and tried my hand at it - it was a very interesting and fun experience). It's no Sindarin by any stretch of the imagination, but with just a little more knowledge on the subject and a lot more time to invest into fleshing it out it could easily be a believable language.
I have about 40 000 words typed up as history of the one kingdom in my world, the kingdom my book is based on. The majority of that has been done in the last year, and it's not even half way to where I want it to be. :lol I do find creating history very engaging, and usually comes as a nice break if I need one from my main story, but it is a daunting task when I consider how large my world is and how many societies I would need to create a history for. Oh well, a problem for another time.
-
That is what I'm slowly doing. Maybe I'll never make the attempt to publish what I'm doing but I do find it interesting and exciting to create a whole world of characters.
Approximately how much work have you done outside your "main story?" I'm doing the same thing, creating thousands of years of history, flesh out some major characters/hero(ines) of the past, different cultures, I've even created the basis of a very simplistic language (I took a couple linguistic classes in university and tried my hand at it - it was a very interesting and fun experience). It's no Sindarin by any stretch of the imagination, but with just a little more knowledge on the subject and a lot more time to invest into fleshing it out it could easily be a believable language.
I have pages upon pages of events in the history of the land, different races and creatures, and even some language experiments. I'm basing it off Sicilian which isn't easy to do because there are not a lot of books about the language. Sicilian isn't the same thing as Italian. It's older and closer to Latin. It's a beautiful language that is slowly disappearing. As far as storyline, I have random sentences on paper that are more like a puzzle than anything coherent. Since my writing does tend to be on the gloomy and obscure side, I'm hoping to come up with some really interesting characters. It'll be like taking Middle Earth and Westeros and putting them in a blender. The result is my world. I have about a dozen names written down for it. Nothing stands out yet.
I have about 40 000 words typed up as history of the one kingdom in my world, the kingdom my book is based on. The majority of that has been done in the last year, and it's not even half way to where I want it to be. :lol I do find creating history very engaging, and usually comes as a nice break if I need one from my main story, but it is a daunting task when I consider how large my world is and how many societies I would need to create a history for. Oh well, a problem for another time.
That's awesome. Do you think you'll ever try and publish it?
That is what I'm slowly doing. Maybe I'll never make the attempt to publish what I'm doing but I do find it interesting and exciting to create a whole world of characters.
Cool - do you think we'll get a chance to read any of your stuff?
As soon as I can massage the knots out of it, yes. I'd definitely like to have a panel of critics.
-
I have about 40 000 words typed up as history of the one kingdom in my world, the kingdom my book is based on. The majority of that has been done in the last year, and it's not even half way to where I want it to be. :lol I do find creating history very engaging, and usually comes as a nice break if I need one from my main story, but it is a daunting task when I consider how large my world is and how many societies I would need to create a history for. Oh well, a problem for another time.
That's awesome. Do you think you'll ever try and publish it?
I'd love to, but I think you'd have to become the Uber famous author before anyone wanted to read it enough to publish it, like Tolkien or GRRM.
A solution I've had, along with self-publishing it (which I would like to do regardless), would be to do a kickstarter for the self-publishing costs, and one of the levels of donations would be to get a manuscript of my history and characters, and assuming I'm not finished it when I get to that point, I would update them with any additions as they come.
-
There are so many authors nowadays that are using world-building as part of their storytelling. I don't see you having a problem with yours, especially if you go to a fantasy-oriented publisher like Tor. Gaining the type of popularity that Martin and Tolkien have in that genre is extremely rare. I'd say less than 1% of fantasy writers are well known. Plus, Tolkien released The Hobbit when he wasn't famous so you could also start off with a specific tale within your world.
-
Read this. This should be something we both jump on.
https://www.tor.com/submissions-guidelines/#Novella-Submissions-Guidelines
-
Read this. This should be something we both jump on.
https://www.tor.com/submissions-guidelines/#Novella-Submissions-Guidelines
Interesting. I have a culture inspired by the Mongolian Empire, which would fit the parameters they are looking for. I'd have to hammer out a story and Polish it in a little over a month....seems like a good challenge to set for myself.
-
My friend used to run her own publishing company, but it was eventually shut down after she got heavily involved with her political career. It was for fantasy, supernatural, and the like. She kept telling me when I had a couple of chapters, she would hand them over to someone to read. I passed up a good chance with that.
-
I've never submitted anything, mostly because I tend to leave things unfinished. I had written a story over 4-5 years, had about 180 000 words, and then scrapped it because it was crap. :lol I had started the story when I was in grade 9 I believe, at which point I was infatuated with the author RA Salvatore, and tried my best to emulate his style. 5 years later my tastes had changed, oddly enough coinciding with the discovery of A Song of Ice and Fire (imagine that), and when I started to change the story to suit a more realistic approach I found that it had no substance. I have my main work in progress, and three or four other stories that I work on as well. I wish I could focus on one thing at a time, perhaps challenging myself to write something with a deadline will help.
-
Did you save any of that 180,000 word project? I'm sure you can salvage a good amount of that and just massage it a bit.
Sticking to one thing has always been my problem. I've gone back and forth with the fantasy project so many times. Then I was writing a fairytale based on Snow White. I have a bit of an obsession with Snow White. Then I was doing the same thing with Alice in Wonderland. Then I was writing some totally raunchy and immoral book, which was part autobiographical, called Dissolute. I still have a few of the stories from it. A couple of them I posted in the Writer's Thread here. I'm all over the place with my ideas.
-
Then I was writing some totally raunchy and immoral book, which was part autobiographical
Just had to give you a :lol for that bit alone..
I'm no writer, but it fascinates me how anyone can take the time and effort to plan out and create a fictional world like that. Good on yous.
-
This is the only edited and polished story I have right now. It's going to be published in a horror fiction anthology. The same woman asked me to write something for a H.P. Lovecraft tribute she is putting together. This story is only a couple of thousand words. I actually cut it in half because I started to ramble. :lol
Still Life
Outside the autumn rain falls. The heavy downpour of water against the windows create a raucous so intense it echoes throughout the household, bouncing off walls and disturbing the serenity of mourners. Clouds hide the sun reflecting bleak gray shadows on the landscape. The grass no longer green; the flowers no longer spattered with colors of the rainbow. There are low hums coming from the cemetery down the street. Each corpse singing its melodic dirge. Their dreams lost forever inside a somber wall of immortal despair. There is no returning from this ultimate endeavor.
Across the street from the cemetery, a park filled with children betrays the scene. Their voices sing in a cheery tone as they splash their feet through the cool puddles. These songs of elation counterpoint the morbidity of this moment for inside the house a grievous loss is being remembered. Inside there are solemn whispers throughout the rooms. Tears are choked back and loss bears down on the shoulders of all.
She paces back and forth uneasily, unsettled by the somber events of the last twenty-four hours. Black roses adorn her hair while the scent of cloves follow her footsteps. She reads the sorrow on the faces around her and looks upon them with great despair. Everyone of them is dealing with their suffering in their own special way. Some hide behind a tear-soaked tissue, while others smile and tell light-hearted jokes to help the mood. There are some whose faces are still stricken with shock as if the weight of this tragedy still hasn’t hit their nerves. They can’t understand what happened and why this ever-changing world continues to devour its youth. She walks up to each one of them and puts her hand on their shoulders knowingly, but they barely seem to notice. She wants to help them, her family and friends, through this dark time, but for the moment it seems futile. A feeling of uselessness overwhelms her.
She decides to escape for a while and heads up to her bedroom. In there she always finds the solace she needs. Everything is familiar, and no matter where she looks it reflects her. She walks over to her record collection, which is meticulously alphabetized. They are all still there – from AC/DC to Frank Zappa – or in her case, Zappa, Frank. Who listens to albums anymore, let alone continues to buy them? “They’re making a comeback,” she would tell people. She takes one out to listen to, walks over to the turntable, and lowers the record gently into place. There is no sound as she flips the switch. All she hears is the light sound of uneven scratches from a thirty year old album. It’s that immortal silence that creates a deafening in her mind. It’s nothing but a grave reminder of all that has come to pass. She will get through this and everything will return to normal – or whatever normal is for a girl like her.
She walks over to the bed and falls onto it as lightly and gracefully as a feather making its journey from the heavens. The sheets have the scent of fresh cotton just like she always remembered. She closes her eyes to take in more of the moment, but her life flashes before her. Each scene is surrounded by grays and blacks. The shadows intensify and the sliver of light eventually disappears as she fades into a dream.
As she makes her way through the golden trees in the Forest of Souls, their shimmering leaves more beautiful than anything she has ever seen, the souls cry out to her. Their decaying hands try grabbing onto her, trying to pull her into their grasp, but she resists. Some of them are too strong for her but she fights her way free. She’s not ready to go down there with them again. Their cries become cacophonous and loud and it’s too much for her. She starts clawing at her ears hoping to get rid of the sounds but it gets louder. Blood from her ears drip down her cheek. She wipes it away as she tries to look for a way out.
The trodden path is within her sight, the one leading her through the Forest of Whispers. It’s marked on either side by marshmallow flowers and blue dandelion freckles. She remembers this place from her previous dreams - this recurring visit to her own Wonderland. The trees whisper in cantillating verses, a song she remembers from her youth. The birds harmonize and seem to smile at her as she passes. She looks down and sees her gown is a flowing ocean of burgundy silk, the wind blowing the layers of material like waves on a harsh sea. The dress was a new twist, but one she pleasantly welcomed. The East and West Sun illuminate her path. Their radiance glistens against the chartreuse sky. Translucent clouds with silver water bubbles seem to bounce along their way. The curious calladilly again teases her to try and pop the bubble clouds. She finds a rock on the side of the path and takes aim. The rock bounces off the bottom of the cloud and heads back towards her. She ducks just in time but loses her balance much to the delight of the hidden gnomes. Their rhythmic snickers are far too humorous for her to become angered.
As she makes her way to the edge of Forest of Whispers, the wolf bars the exit. He stands on his hind legs as she approaches, waving her down to stop. He pulls a top hat out of the invisible pocket of his fur and positions it perfectly atop his snow white fur. Every time she attempts to leave, he stands before her, always asking the same question. When she simply responds, “I don’t know,” he nods and stands aside. She turns around to give her customary wave, but he isn’t there anymore. All she sees is the flowing golden leaves losing their luster, turning to black, and crumbling like ash to the once brilliant floor. She sheds a tear and wonders if this has some significance back in her world.
Off in the distance she sees a glowing door. Her feet lead her in that direction, but it seems like she isn’t getting any closer. She tries to run, but her shoes weigh her down, almost like she’s wading into quicksand. The door calls out to her. The pounding from the other side entices her. Is someone there waiting to come through to her side or are they trying to gain her attention? The knocking gets louder and louder as she fights her way out of the sinking floor. The heavy shoes fall off and barefoot makes her way to the door. She hears it vibrating as she approaches it. The humming seems to be coming from the other side. It reminds her of the low hum of the cemetery. As she grasps the doorknob it sends a jolt of electricity throughout her body, but she doesn’t let go. Her body shivers as if she has just felt an intense release. She manages to pull it open. Before her there is nothing. Across a great empty plain of white she sees nothing at all. Off the distance, she hears a voice whisper, “no”. The door slams and she wakes up in her bed.
She thinks back to when everything changed. At first, when she moved here, she was the typical new girl, but quickly became the most popular girl in school. She became lead cheerleader of the Pom Pom Squad. Her grades were always the best in the class and everyone was voting for her to be prom queen. Even the most popular girls in the school took a strong liking to her. There was some aura about her that endeared everyone to her. This kindred feeling amongst her peers couldn’t last forever though. Daddy’s perfect little girl was about to become the town’s worst nightmare.
After she met Emily, everything changed. Emily was know as the town goth girl. It seems that every small town has that one person who sticks out. She was always in detention at school. She indulged in drinking and getting high. They ran into each other one night after a particularly long day at school. To add to the desolation that surrounded the events of the day, she was stuck waiting for the bus in the middle of a torrential rain. Emily offered her a ride much to her surprise. Even though she felt like Emily had some alterior motive, which would eventually come to fruition, she still accepted this unusual display of altruism. It seemed Emily possessed this same magnetic aura that she seemed to have with others. This one supposedly chance meeting started her on a downward spiral.
She felt like she never had before, though. She realized her life had been a bore up until now. Doing things by the book was no way to experience life. Her grades started to slip. She would steal her father’s liquor and raid his weed stash. She and Emily would hide out in the cemetery down the street. It was peaceful, and everyone was too scared to look for them there. As she spent more and more of her time hanging out with Emily, she started coming home past curfew. It became so severe that her parents resorted to locking her out, so she would head down the street and sleep in one of the mausoleums in the cemetery. It was the perfect shield against the rain, and if the night was cool, she would grab some nearby twigs and leaves and burn them until she fell asleep.
It was with Emily that she learned how to cut. She used the blades Emily stole from her father. At first they would make little nicks on their skin just to see themselves bleed. It wasn’t enough though. The sight of blood became such an intensity for her, so she cut a little deeper hoping to heighten the experience. She would watch the blood stream down her arm and then drip to the floor. Sometimes they would taste their own blood and other times they would taste each other’s. There was something enlightening and endearing about it that it seemed to seal their friendship. This new hobby of theirs is what caused Emily’s accident.
It brought tears to her eyes as she lay there alone, wrapped in her memories, enveloped by her fears of her empty future without her best friend. She went into her closet and grabbed her Cradle of Filth long-sleeve. It didn’t matter how warm it was outside. It was her look and people just had to accept it. She didn’t want to return to her family downstairs. They acted like she wasn’t even there, so she ran downstairs and headed out the front door to the only place that gave her some sort of sanity. Down the street she followed the hums of the dead. She knew she could hide out there for a while and then head home to face her parents again. As she walked through the cemetery, reading the beautiful poetry on the headstones, she knew exactly which words should go on Emily’s. As she whispered them to herself, the tears returned. It was the poem that Emily read to her the first night they kissed. She ran to the headstone to see if there enough space for the epitaph. A bolt of lightning found it’s way to the earth, burning the leaves surrounding her grave, and sending her body flying back. As she fell to the ground, her head landed on a stone. Memories came crashing back. She remembered seeing the blood pouring down her arm. The taste at first filled her with lust and sensuality, but she remembered feeling nauseous after drinking too much. She looked back at the headstone and let out a scream so loud the ground seemed to shake under her.
Emily Morris
b. March 24, 1996
d. March 24, 2013
As she sat there in a state of shock, she heard people approaching the cemetery. She saw the crowd all dressed in black making their way inside. In front were her parents, holding a picture of her with tears in their eyes as they came to say their last goodbye to their daughter.
-
Good effort! Pretty dark stuff - is that your usual style?
BTW You mention Forest of Souls once and then Forest of Whispers twice. Maybe a wee inconsistency? (Not trying to poke holes - just something I noticed :))
-
I like it, Prog, well done!
-
Good effort! Pretty dark stuff - is that your usual style?
BTW You mention Forest of Souls once and then Forest of Whispers twice. Maybe a wee inconsistency? (Not trying to poke holes - just something I noticed :))
Yeah, I can't believe I missed that. Maybe the editor caught it. I'll ask her.
I tend to have a darker imagination, so yes. You should see what I did to poor Prince Charming in my Snow White based story. :xbones
I like it, Prog, well done!
Thank you, sir. I try. ;)
-
Tldr
I tried reading the simarillion after reading the hobbit and lotr. Nope.
-
:lol A lot of people struggle with it.
-
John, I never asked you this: what's your opinion of what Peter Jackson pulled with Gandalf's staff(s) in the films?
-
How many times have you guys read through Tolkien's works to gain such a near-encyclopedic knowledge on it? It is fascinating to me how people can do that. Granted, this is just my second ever read through, but other than the main events and such, the majority of it just kind of passes through me. Did you guys study it like a textbook? It's something I would love to do, because while only a few chapters into it, I have a much larger appreciation for it than I ever remember having. When I was younger it was more "read things fast to say you've read them," but now I'm making a concerted effort to understand what I am reading.
-
Couldn't tell you how many times I've read through things, but I find I retain a lot of info about things I enjoy. There are also resources online that can supplement the texts, but for me, it's a subject and topic I thoroughly enjoy, so I tend to absorb it well.
-
Couldn't tell you how many times I've read through things, but I find I retain a lot of info about things I enjoy. There are also resources online that can supplement the texts, but for me, it's a subject and topic I thoroughly enjoy, so I tend to absorb it well.
What would these be?
I've always considered myself a "Tolkien fan," but it is clear to me how woefully insufficient my knowledge is. I've asked for the first few History of Middle Earth volumes for Christmas, I really hope I get them because I can't afford to buy them right now (returning to University in January).
I am going to post a section of my writing in the Writer's thread. I would really appreciate a few of you giving me some honest feedback on it, no matter how harsh it is. I've never had an unbiased opinion of my writing before.
-
lotr.wikia.com is a good one, along with https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/
Plus the appendices to LotR and the vast indices and charts that accompany the Silmarillion are invaluable and incredibly informative.
-
lotr.wikia.com is a good one, along with https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/
Plus the appendices to LotR and the vast indices and charts that accompany the Silmarillion are invaluable and incredibly informative.
Thanks! I'll make sure to have those on hand while reading.
-
This is my 4th time through LOTR. I've read the Hobbit 3 times and the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales once. TBH The Silmarillion/Unfinished tales is probably my limit - anything beyond that is too much in the scholarly direction for me. I'll start on Tales From The Perilous Realm after I finish LOTR (I'm a slow reader :))
I'd be out of my depth posting there, but I've enjoyed reading some of the discussions on the message boards at theonering.net: https://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi
There's plenty there for anyone wanting to dig into the details a lot more.
-
Do you think anyone who runs the Tolkien estate in the future will allow others to write more in Tolkien's universe? I'm not sure if Christopher is a good writer or not, but it would have been cool to see him try his hand at creating something. I know they won't want to do it, so as not to tarnish what JRR created, but I would love it if whoever came after Christopher was a legit author his/herself, and dipped their toe in. There's so many possibilities to explore.
Who, if any, of the modern authors would you love to see given the chance to write in Tolkien's world? What would you want to see them write about?
-
Christopher is 92.
As for others, I hope they don't. I'd rather it just go to the public domain before that.
-
Honestly, I hope the estate retains its grip on everything. I'm a purist, and after the way the Hobbit films were treated, I honestly hope the lid is kept shut. I hate how things get ruined the more people fuck with remaking them, and Tolkien's work is too good for that, imo.
John, you haven't yet addressed my question:
John, I never asked you this: what's your opinion of what Peter Jackson pulled with Gandalf's staff(s) in the films?
-
Honestly, I hope the estate retains its grip on everything. I'm a purist, and after the way the Hobbit films were treated, I honestly hope the lid is kept shut. I hate how things get ruined the more people fuck with remaking them, and Tolkien's work is too good for that, imo.
This pretty much sums up my view too. Leave well alone..
-
Honestly, I hope the estate retains its grip on everything. I'm a purist, and after the way the Hobbit films were treated, I honestly hope the lid is kept shut. I hate how things get ruined the more people fuck with remaking them, and Tolkien's work is too good for that, imo.
This pretty much sums up my view too. Leave well alone..
Logically, I feel the same and know it to be best if they keep the lid shut, but at the same time it seems a great shame that such a big, beautiful, and believable world is just sitting there.
-
Honestly, I hope the estate retains its grip on everything. I'm a purist, and after the way the Hobbit films were treated, I honestly hope the lid is kept shut. I hate how things get ruined the more people fuck with remaking them, and Tolkien's work is too good for that, imo.
This pretty much sums up my view too. Leave well alone..
Logically, I feel the same and know it to be best if they keep the lid shut, but at the same time it seems a great shame that such a big, beautiful, and believable world is just sitting there.
Perhaps a shame, but I feel it would be doing it a great disservice to have someone other than Tolkien himself adding to and expanding his world. He is its lord and master, and to have anyone else, even his own family, altering/adding in any way would forever open the Pandora's Box of "but is it what J.R.R. would have intended?" etc.
-
Honestly, I hope the estate retains its grip on everything. I'm a purist, and after the way the Hobbit films were treated, I honestly hope the lid is kept shut. I hate how things get ruined the more people fuck with remaking them, and Tolkien's work is too good for that, imo.
John, you haven't yet addressed my question:
John, I never asked you this: what's your opinion of what Peter Jackson pulled with Gandalf's staff(s) in the films?
Oops, sorry about that. I meant to ask you to clarify that. Are you taking about how Gandalf wound up with Radagast's staff?
-
Yes.
-
Apparently there is speculation that it meant that Radagast died in the BotFA. I don't know if that's true because we do see him on the eagles at the end of the movie. He does play a part in the LotR books also. Some say it was just a prop inconsistency, but it's very odd that Gandalf has that same staff during Fellowship of the Ring. It's possible that Peter Jackson had Gandalf intentionally use that staff at the end of The Hobbit trilogy to link it with the LotR movies.
-
Are you guys talking about this scene:
https://youtu.be/40oFmq1k8SE
It was maybe part of the EE, but I don't remember it. No desire to watch the extended editions, which is a shame.
Anyway, I didn't really think that wizards' staffs had any real power in and of themselves.
-
The staffs of the Istari were the focus of their powers...
"The wizards bore the forms of old Men; they were ancient and seemed to age very fast. They possessed great skill of body and mind; their powers were focused through their Staffs. Each of the Istari had his own colour and grade within the Order. Saruman the White was the eldest and Gandalf the Grey second. The other Istari were Radagast the Brown and the two Blue Wizards, who dwelt far in the south."
I think it was more Hollywood "nuancing" to lend more credibility to his bastardization of the story. Radagast had little to nothing to do with the Hobbit storyline, and in order to play up how outmatched Gandalf was as Dol Guldur, he had Sauron's spiritual form destroy his staff in the confrontation, but then had to have one for the rest of the story.
It is very interesting, and rather disappointing, to me how much PJ and the film crews mucked with Gandalf's staff, completely unnecessarily. In the books, Gandalf has TWO staffs: the first, made and given to him in Valinor before he is sent to Middle-earth. This is the staff he carries and uses throughout his journeys leading up to and including the Hobbit journey and the subsequent dealings Lord of the Rings, up to the point in Moria where he fights the Balrog. His staff, and body, are broken in the fight and he dies. He is reincarnated as Gandalf the White and goes to Lorien, where Galadriel creates his new white robes and staff, and that is the staff he ultimately takes with him back to the Undying Lands. Done, simple.
In the movies, Gandalf carries FOUR staffs. Chronologically:
1 - Gandalf begins the Hobbit films with HIS staff, presumably his staff from Valinor.
This staff is destroyed by Sauron in the confrontation at Dol Guldur.
2 - Somehow after his rescue from Dol Guldur, Gandalf borrows (?) Radagast's staff for the Battle of Five Armies.
After the Hobbit films close, we can only assume Gandalf returns Radagast's staff to him (it is known in Tolkien's writing that Radagast lives in Middle-earth at least til TA 3018).
So then into the LotR trilogy we go and Gandalf now has
3- Staff #3. No clue where he got this one.
This staff remains with him until he is imprisoned in Orthanc by Saruman. We see in the movie that Saruman disarms him and takes his staff before sending him to the top of the tower. We then see Gandalf escape on Gwaihir's back WITHOUT his staff. It is worth noting that nowhere in the books does Gandalf ever have his staff taken, so we can assume he escaped Orthanc with it.
We then see Gandalf again in Rivendell with RADAGAST'S staff again. It now has the jewel in it, that we see him use in Moria to shine more light on the Dwarrowdelf. How did he get this staff again? Did Radagast give it to Elrond to give to Gandalf in Rivendell to use? I really don't believe the Istari just tossed around their staffs like this.
This staff is ultimately destroyed on the Bridge of Khazad-dum in the battle with the Balrog. Then we get ...
4 - Staff #4, the white staff in his new role as Gandalf the White.
One other staff inconsistency occurs in the Extended Edition of RotK: in Minas Tirith, the deleted confrontation between the Witch-King and Gandalf ends with his staff being destroyed (in the book, a bird crows and the Rohirrim arrive, and the Witch-King flies off to handle the Battle of Pelennor Fields). Discontinuity: Gandalf has his staff at the end of the movie, at the harbor waiting to leave for the Undying Lands.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Wow, nice analysis! Seriously, I noticed that Gandalf had different staves at different points throughout the epic, but I knew he'd lost the one at Khazad-dum, and I thought maybe Saruman still had one or something, so I didn't really worry about it. But now that you've pointed it all out, it bugs me. So thanks a lot. :angry:
:yarr
-
Wow, nice analysis! Seriously, I noticed that Gandalf had different staves at different points throughout the epic, but I knew he'd lost the one at Khazad-dum, and I thought maybe Saruman still had one or something, so I didn't really worry about it. But now that you've pointed it all out, it bugs me. So thanks a lot. :angry:
:angry:
:angry:
-
:lol
-
Well, that's a total mess. Good comparison images here:
https://www.thelandofshadow.com/there-is-can-no-longer-be-any-doubt-about-gandalf-wielding-the-staff-of-radagast/
More staves than you can shake a stick at.. (groan) :P
-
It basically agrees with what Hypo said.
-
Nice breakdown, Andrew. It's trivial to many but when you're Peter Jackson and you claim to want to pay so much attention to detail, it's disconcerting just how many things he missed or was indifferent to.
-
Agreed. Does this minute detail make the movies suck? No of course not. But, as you said, a director who proclaims to be so detail-oriented owes it to the die-hards, a population that is not exactly tiny, to at least try to not create problems by changing things.
Another hole introduced by his "staff play" is, what the hell does Radagast do for a staff after Gandalf gets his staff destroyed in Moria? Does Radagast go to the Staff Depot and have another one made? Will Galadriel make it for him? Or does he simply spend the rest of his time on Middle-earth staffless?
For something that has so little actual bearing on any outcomes in the narrative, why fuck with it like they did? Die-hards obviously notice the fuckup, and laypeople won't care or even know. So what's the point?
-
For minor reasons like that, and major reasons like totally improvising most of The Hobbit, is why we'll probably never see anything else Tolkien wrote come to the big screen. I feel like watching the movies now. I'll start with Fellowship, extended edition of course.
-
For minor reasons like that, and major reasons like totally improvising most of The Hobbit, is why we'll probably never see anything else Tolkien wrote come to the big screen. I feel like watching the movies now. I'll start with Fellowship, extended edition of course.
I work outside, and next week it looks like it's going to be -30 Celsius and colder every day, so I won't be working. A friend and I have decided to do a Hobbit-LOTR-Star Wars week. We both love LOTR, and I have never watched star wars. Should be fun.
-
I am hoping someone in my family gets me the full 12-volume History of Middle-earth boxed set.
-
For minor reasons like that, and major reasons like totally improvising most of The Hobbit, is why we'll probably never see anything else Tolkien wrote come to the big screen. I feel like watching the movies now. I'll start with Fellowship, extended edition of course.
I work outside, and next week it looks like it's going to be -30 Celsius and colder every day, so I won't be working. A friend and I have decided to do a Hobbit-LOTR-Star Wars week. We both love LOTR, and I have never watched star wars. Should be fun.
I've only seen the original Star Wars trilogy and Phantom Menace. I'm not too much of a SW fan. It doesn't do anything for me.
Which of the six Tolkien movies is your favorite?
I am hoping someone in my family gets me the full 12-volume History of Middle-earth boxed set.
That's a lot of information to process. It should be really intriguing.
-
Didn't say I'd read it in one sitting. :lol
I have so many other books, including lost tales and unfinished tales etc, I'd really like reference stuff.
-
:biggrin:
I know. I would enjoy reading it, too. I only have one of them so far.
-
And while I'm on the subject of bitching about PJ...why the hell did he feel the need to change the method in which Bilbo finds the Ring?
Rewind to Fellowship, which PJ directed, and we see, as Galadriel tells the Ring's history, Bilbo feeling around blindly in a dark tunnel, chancing upon something metal and shiny, and picking it up. He FOUND it, and that is exactly how he came upon it in the text.
Now we come to the first Hobbit film, and Bilbo is in the goblin tunnels watching Gollum fight the orc. He WATCHES the Ring fall from Gollum's person, and he goes and takes it. He STEALS it. Completely different set of circumstances, and it turns Bilbo from a lucky recipient of what Tolkien often referred to as the fate of the Ring into someone who knowingly took another's possession.
And Peter Jackson directed both movies...he contradicted his own film, let alone the story itself.
Again, minor thing that most people probably don't care about, but the on-screen Bilbo stole the Ring, while the textual Bilbo found it.
-
I'm not sure what my favorite movie would be. I love the epicness of ROTK, but the Battle of Helm's Deep is much favorite part, while FOTR is just such a good movie.
-
I find Fellowship is the truest to the stories, and has so much in it....
Two Towers does have Helm's Deep, but this is also the movie that deviated the most, especially with Faramir.
Return is just the most intense, and course is the climax and completion of the whole story, though I did find the ending a bit too drawn out.
I vacillate between Fellowship and Return. My choice is probably the one I have seen least recently.
-
And while I'm on the subject of bitching about PJ...why the hell did he feel the need to change the method in which Bilbo finds the Ring?
Rewind to Fellowship, which PJ directed, and we see, as Galadriel tells the Ring's history, Bilbo feeling around blindly in a dark tunnel, chancing upon something metal and shiny, and picking it up. He FOUND it, and that is exactly how he came upon it in the text.
Now we come to the first Hobbit film, and Bilbo is in the goblin tunnels watching Gollum fight the orc. He WATCHES the Ring fall from Gollum's person, and he goes and takes it. He STEALS it. Completely different set of circumstances, and it turns Bilbo from a lucky recipient of what Tolkien often referred to as the fate of the Ring into someone who knowingly took another's possession.
And Peter Jackson directed both movies...he contradicted his own film, let alone the story itself.
Again, minor thing that most people probably don't care about, but the on-screen Bilbo stole the Ring, while the textual Bilbo found it.
Damn, you're right. That didn't even occur to me. I know that his heart wasn't into The Hobbit movies like it was into LotR. You could tell he didn't have that same enthusiasm during documentaries and interviews. He really didn't want to be the one making those movies but after Guillermo Del Toro dropped out, someone had to step in. That lack of enthusiasm probably clouded his effort.
I'm not sure what my favorite movie would be. I love the epicness of ROTK, but the Battle of Helm's Deep is much favorite part, while FOTR is just such a good movie.
I find Fellowship is the truest to the stories, and has so much in it....
Two Towers does have Helm's Deep, but this is also the movie that deviated the most, especially with Faramir.
Return is just the most intense, and course is the climax and completion of the whole story, though I did find the ending a bit too drawn out.
I vacillate between Fellowship and Return. My choice is probably the one I have seen least recently.
I'd have to say Return of the King for me, especially the extended edition. Four and a half hours! Give me more. The Two Towers is probably the one I watch the least in the first trilogy.
-
Yeah, I didn't like the deal with Bilbo actually stealing the ring. But then, I've seen The Hobbit movies once each and I honestly don't think I'll bother with them again, so I don't waste brain cells even worrying about it.
-
I dissect that shit, as is blatantly obvious. A lot of the time I don't care unless it's about a subject I have a passion for, like Tolkien. My brain goes into hyperdrive over it. It irks me that someone had the money, time, and opportunity to do something great with it, and instead did what was done to those movies.
After how great the original trilogy was, these were a letdown.
-
My brother didn't bother watching the last two movies. I kind of feel bad for him with that. He's a lifelong Tolkien fan like myself. You look forward to seeing the movies, but after seeing the first one it discourages you so much, because of the liberties PJ took, that you can't be bothered with the rest.
-
I find this whole topic a wee bit ironic considering Tolkien himself changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter.
Yes, I know, he was the author, he's allowed to make edits, I just find it amusing.
As for the moral implications of him stealing the Ring... Bilbo's being chased by horrible creatures that want to kill him, and another horrible creature kills one of them. He sees the Ring fall from Gollum's pocket. What's he supposed to do, say, "excuse me sir, you dropped this, now please tell me the way out and don't crush my fucking skull like you did the last guy". He COULD have left it, but to Bilbo's best knowledge, what use does a horrible subterranean phantom have for a ring? Within the context of the chapter, Bilbo did the equivalent of taking a wallet from a hyena who was, for whatever reason, quite fond of it. Sure, the hyena's gonna be upset, but who gives a fuck, it's a stinking ugly hyena. Of course, the audience knows better, knows what Gollum originally was (by which I mean the film-watching audience who saw LOTR first) but Bilbo doesn't.
-
You're missing my point. I did not question what Bilbo did or why he did it. I questioned why the way he found it was changed. Not only is it a fundamental change in his character from how he was written, it contradicts what was already made in the universe of a previous film.
One of the things mentioned in the mythology is that Bilbo was able to live so well for so long while in possession of the Ring because he came upon in and began his ownership of it with mercy. He found it by chance, and when he had the opportunity to kill Gollum, he instead gave mercy. Bilbo was benevolent. Witnessing and stealing something, however opportunistic, is very different.
I'm just saying it was an unnecessary change. He could have found it in a tunnel, and then the reveal that it was in fact Gollums made when he can't find his "precious." You even see on Bilbo's face when he realizes "oh shit he knows I took it." I just think it was useless and a negative light on how Bilbo was portrayed.
-
I agree. Bilbo went from 100% innocent to at least partly "guilty" in acquiring the ring. It wasn't just something he stumbled upon, pocketed, and literally forgot about seconds later because he had other things to worry about at the time. He knew whose it was. Some of PJ's changes make no sense to me at all, and I've concluded that he changed some things just to change them, to put his "mark" on the story, and to me, that's just wrong.
-
I was kind of just playing devil's advocate.
I loved LOTR and the Silmarillion, but even when I first read it as a kid, I didn't care for The Hobbit. I actually wish Tolkien had gone through with a complete rewrite. I've started revisiting books I read as a kid in recent years, and when I get to Tolkien, I'm not sure if I'll even bother with it.
So I didn't like the movies, but I'm not exactly heartbroken that PJ screwed it up.
-
Yeah, I didn't like the deal with Bilbo actually stealing the ring. But then, I've seen The Hobbit movies once each and I honestly don't think I'll bother with them again, so I don't waste brain cells even worrying about it.
I think that's pretty much where I'm at with The Hobbit movies. Considering I triple dipped with LOTR (Theatrical DVD, EE DVD, EE Blu-Ray), but I didn't buy any version of any of the Hobbit movies, that probably says it all.
Just to change gears slightly - what do people think about the omission of The Scouring Of The Shire? I can understand why they would want to take it out, to have a nice neat Hollywood ending, and also probably for the sake of time, but one of the things I love about LOTR is that it ends on such a bitter sweet note. The surviving characters are left to adjust to a world that has been affected by evil, and even though that evil was destroyed, the world that they knew (esp. the Shire) would never be the same again.
I think that message was lost a little with the non-inclusion of TSOTS..
-
I was kind of just playing devil's advocate.
I loved LOTR and the Silmarillion, but even when I first read it as a kid, I didn't care for The Hobbit. I actually wish Tolkien had gone through with a complete rewrite. I've started revisiting books I read as a kid in recent years, and when I get to Tolkien, I'm not sure if I'll even bother with it.
So I didn't like the movies, but I'm not exactly heartbroken that PJ screwed it up.
Tolkien did change the original version of The Hobbit. Not only to make it geared towards an older audience but to also have it coincide more accurately with Lord of the Rings.
Just to change gears slightly - what do people think about the omission of The Scouring Of The Shire? I can understand why they would want to take it out, to have a nice neat Hollywood ending, and also probably for the sake of time, but one of the things I love about LOTR is that it ends on such a bitter sweet note. The surviving characters are left to adjust to a world that has been affected by evil, and even though that evil was destroyed, the world that they knew (esp. the Shire) would never be the same again.
I think that message was lost a little with the non-inclusion of TSOTS..
I would have loved to see that included. It's one of my favorite chapters.
At the end of RotK, the four of them are sitting in the bar. Everyone around them is having a good time laughing and drinking. People are still looking at them the same way, though. They have no clue what these four fellow hobbits went through and endured to keep The Shire safe. I feel like they deserved more than that. Yes, Frodo and the others are fairly humble and gracious for many things. But you can see it in their eyes, that sense of disappointment. The Scouring helps bring to light the deeds they did and the dangers that they faced outside their borders.
-
Tolkien did change the original version of The Hobbit. Not only to make it geared towards an older audience but to also have it coincide more accurately with Lord of the Rings.
While I realise he made revisions... The Hobbit is still a children's book. I could barely stomach it when I was ten or eleven. If that's already been edited for an older audience, then he did an abysmal job of it.
From what I understand, he started redoing it so it would be almost identical in tone and feel to LOTR, but abandoned it by the time the characters got to Rivendell.
EDIT:
Tolkien did start a complete rewrite in the 1960s. This is the explanation for the abandonment given in The History of the Hobbit:
According to Christopher Tolkien, when his father had reached this point in the recasting he loaned the material to a friend to get an outside opinion on it. We do not know this person’s identity, but apparently her response was something along the lines of ‘this is wonderful, but it’s not The Hobbit’. She must have been someone whose judgment Tolkien respected, for he abandoned the work and decided to let The Hobbit retain its own autonomy and voice rather than completely incorporate it into The Lord of the Rings as a lesser ‘prelude’ to the greater work.
At the end of RotK, the four of them are sitting in the bar. Everyone around them is having a good time laughing and drinking. People are still looking at them the same way, though. They have no clue what these four fellow hobbits went through and endured to keep The Shire safe. I feel like they deserved more than that. Yes, Frodo and the others are fairly humble and gracious for many things. But you can see it in their eyes, that sense of disappointment. The Scouring helps bring to light the deeds they did and the dangers that they faced outside their borders.
I thought they looked quite content to be back somewhere where they're just one of the guys. Sure, they would have been honoured to be revered for their actions, but I can't imagine those characters wanting or expecting that on home turf.
I also just like the contrast that they are considered the saviours of the world out there in the wide world, but the Shire is so oblivious to what's been going on, they can return and their fellow hobbits have no idea. Not that it doesn't work the way it was in the book, but with the Scouring left out, I think it was a nice touch to leave their exploits totally unknown.
-
I actually had a different take on the final bar scene back in Hobbiton. Instead of disappointment, I get a sense of melancholy, not so much for the lack of recognition, but because here are 4 friends who have been literally to the edge of the world and back, risked their lives, nearly died, been through war, all of these extremely life-altering events, and yet here they are, back where they started and seemingly nothing has changed. The silent glances they exchange to me say two things: 1, it's good to be home but 2, perhaps more importantly, their lives will never be the same again. They, as hobbits, have been fundamentally changed, and no amount of familiarity will return them to what they were before the journey.
This is a sentiment echoed in the lines Frodo narrates leading up to the last scene at Bag End:
"How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on, when in your heart, you begin to understand, there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep… that have taken hold."
And I agree that leaving out the Scouring, as awesome a chapter as it is, was a wise choice for the movie. I do think the way they left the fates of the remaining hobbits unknown was effective.
-
I am hoping someone in my family gets me the full 12-volume History of Middle-earth boxed set.
Yeah, me too.
-
I actually had a different take on the final bar scene back in Hobbiton. Instead of disappointment, I get a sense of melancholy, not so much for the lack of recognition, but because here are 4 friends who have been literally to the edge of the world and back, risked their lives, nearly died, been through war, all of these extremely life-altering events, and yet here they are, back where they started and seemingly nothing has changed. The silent glances they exchange to me say two things: 1, it's good to be home but 2, perhaps more importantly, their lives will never be the same again. They, as hobbits, have been fundamentally changed, and no amount of familiarity will return them to what they were before the journey.
This is a sentiment echoed in the lines Frodo narrates leading up to the last scene at Bag End:
"How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on, when in your heart, you begin to understand, there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep… that have taken hold."
And I agree that leaving out the Scouring, as awesome a chapter as it is, was a wise choice for the movie. I do think the way they left the fates of the remaining hobbits unknown was effective.
I wish I had time to learn video design/animation. I'd make my own Scouring of the Shire chapter, or Ainulindale, or everything else. :blob:
-
Does anyone here play Kingdoms of Middle Earth?
-
BTW, I did buy this, which I'll probably get to right after finishing LOTR: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Perilous-Realm-Roverandom-Classic/dp/0007280599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480072794&sr=8-1&keywords=tales+from+the+perilous+realm
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dOPIpSXML._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Circling back to this, I just finished reading this book, which is made up of this collection of stories (description borrowed from Amazon):
• Roverandom is a toy dog who, enchanted by a sand sorcerer, gets to explore the world and encounter strange and fabulous creatures.
• Farmer Giles of Ham is fat and unheroic, but - having unwittingly managed to scare off a short-sighted giant - is called upon to do battle when a dragon comes to town;
• The Adventures of Tom Bombadil tells in verse of Tom's many adventures with hobbits, princesses, dwarves and trolls;
• Leaf by Niggle recounts the strange adventures of the painter Niggle who sets out to paint the perfect tree;
• Smith of Wootton Major journeys to the Land of Faery thanks to the magical ingredients of the Great Cake of the Feast of Good Children.
Out of all these, Farmer Giles was probably my favourite. The farmer finds himself as an accidental hero, after shooting a giant, and is called upon by the rest of the village to sort out a little dragon problem. That one feels the most fleshed out, and complete as a story. There's also a great sense of humour and fun as Farmer Giles uses a combination of wits and luck to get through various scrapes.
The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was a bit of a disappointment. It's told as one long poem, so it you weren't a fan of the poetry in LOTR, you'll not like this. I didn't really get to find out much more about Tom as a character, his origins, or what he was up to pre LOTR, which was a little bit of a let down.
The other stories are quirky and interesting in their own way, but there wasn't really much meat on the bones. Roverandom in particular I found pretty wacky and hard to follow. I can see why they were compiled into this book, as there's not really enough material to stand on their own as separate books.
Still, it was fun to dip into some of Tolkien's non-Middle Earth material.
-
That looks like something I need to grab.
-
Go for it :). The Kindle version was pretty cheap, as I remember.
Just looking on Amazon I noticed this - The Story of Kullervo:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/411zJIgrlXL._AC_UL115_.jpg)
I've never heard of this one! Might be worth picking up at some stage.
-
I've seen that one at the bookstore. I haven't bought it yet, though.
-
Stumbled across these today...I'm mesmerized just listening...
https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/01/15/j-r-r-tolkien-reads-from-lotr/
https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/08/06/tolkien-reads-from-the-hobbit/
Hearing him do Gollum's voice is nothing short of miraculous.
-
Fascinating! I like how Andy Serkis stayed reasonably faithful to Tolkien's own voice for Gollum.
-
I'm not a fan of books on tape, but if there were full recordings of him reading the books, I'd seriously be into them. There's something spellbinding about listening to the voice of the man who created it all reciting, "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to bind them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them, in the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie."
-
So...
(https://i.imgur.com/yr9lKWC.jpg)
-
That looks freakin' awesome! :hat
-
That is beautiful.
To get away from the topic briefly. If you want to hear some books on tape that are absolutely brilliant, check out A Song of Ice and Fire done by Roy Dotrice. He had a cameo as the pyromancer in the Battle of Blackwater Bay storyline. It's worth listening to the audio-books just for his take on the voices, especially during the sex scenes. :lol
-
I finished The Children of Húrin last night. Excellent book, and a wonderful, but tragic story. The writing flowed very well, with none of those chunks of explanatory text from CT that I thought might have put me off.
I've been seeing lots of adverts for this on FB:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81fElR4BzIL._SL1500_.jpg)
It's released on the 1st June. Must look out for it..
-
The Children of Hurin was a very satisfying read. Like that, I'll get Beren and Luthien as soon as it comes out. Thanks for reminding me about it actually. I need to pre-order it.
-
Anybody gotten and/or read Beren and Luthien yet?
-
It's on my wish list, but I have other stuff going on now. Very soon, though. Very soon.
-
Not yet. Reading through some reviews though, it seems that it's not a single completed story, like the Children of Húrin. Instead, it's different versions of the Beren and Luthien story, as it changed over time.
TBH this puts me off a little, as it was what I didn't like about the History of Middle Earth series.
Also, the Kindle price is £12.99, when the paperback is £8.99. Why do they do this? >:(
-
They have the hardcover on Amazon for $42. WTF! Let me check Barnes and Noble.
-
Out of stock online. Fuckers. There's one down the street from my job. Hopefully I'll have time to go there today.