We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Aslan Jun 10, 2001 - 10:12 pm

Either I'm blind or there's no Tolkien on this board. If there is, I hope The Master will be good enough to plug this post into the appropriate position.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, along with its prequel, The Hobbit, are in my opinion a masterful set of works. The only other work of his that I've read is The Silmarilion, which does a wonderful job of fleshing out his outstanding worldbuilding, but is a terribly dull read. That is what happens when you have all plot and no character. Since it was not his best work, nor his most famous, I won't talk about it any more. Let's move straight on to the Famous Four.

The Hobbit is a great introduction to the series. Action-packed, it makes wonderful introduction to the now-traditional fantasy world and the hobbits themselves. It's a quick, fun read filled with any number of wonderful characters. It's the classic tale of the hero's quest, as elucidated by Joseph Campbell.

The Lord of the Rings, however, is much more. There are several enthralling themes woven into a relatively short trilogy. The tragic burden carried by Frodo through a sense of destiny or responsibility. The idea that even the least likely person can have great value. The temptations that led Saruman to evil and Boromir to momentarily find darkness in his heart, but which Galadriel and Gandalf withstood. And many others, two of which I'd like to address specifically.

Throughout the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien demonstrates comraderie and love between men. The companionship of the entire interracial traveling party is just wonderful. Legolas and Gimli have a great relationship, but the hobbits are even closer with their friendships and the way they demonstrate them. These are brave, heterosexual men who hold one another and sing together. The trip to Mount Doom brings Sam and Frodo very physically and emotionally close. There's a tremendous amount of male bonding, here. And not what our culture calls male bonding. Sitting in front of a football game while belching and talking about girls is a lot of fun, but really doesn't bring men a lot closer together. Tolkien illustrates the real thing, and it's a joy to read. Maybe this is why there are few female characters and only two who are more than one-dimensional. Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to interfere with the all-male dynamic.

The other thing I just love about these books is the three-in-one character of Frodo, Samwise and Gollum. You won't find a character with more depth than these three, who really represent different sides of the same person. I won't flesh this one out in detail, but it's great literary form.

For all these reasons, The Lord of the Rings was, is, and always will be one of the greatest single works of all time. I have a feeling that the upcoming movies will be disappointing, but I leave that for another forum.

I'd like to hear comments from others about what you thought were the best characters, themes, etc. from the trilogy and prequel.

Posted By: Simon Jan 26, 2002 - 01:02 pm

Hmm. Some of the most interesting characters, I think, is mostly Legolas. But I also find that Galadriel and Arwen has many interesting sides, even thoe you talk of them as 'one dimensional', instead are the female characters very strong. But that doesn't justify them being so few, that is one of the downparts of the LotR.

I have not -yet- read the sillmarillion and UT, but I will soon. But of what I has heard they are too woodtasting, which I even think the original was in some places.

But even thoe I like the trilogy very much, I can't say it's the best I've read. I think the Wheel of Time by Jordan, at large, can have a chance against the male-dominated giant. And our best fantasy writer, Robin Hobb, overcomes the trilogy in any moment, by the help of the wonderful characters and intricated plot in the Farseer series.

And 'the Hobbit', was good. But not very good, and far from fantastic. I think people partly are right when they say Tolkien is the creator of all modern fantasy, and that everybody who call them self fantasy readers must have read. But still, it feels quite old and woodish sometimes, and like a history lesson.

But, still, it's a masterpiece, and has been a classic since the day it was released in hardcover by George and Unwin to a happy London.

Posted By: Corwwyn Jan 27, 2002 - 03:26 pm

In my opinion, Jordan's wheel of time, while containing much very good writing, is hogtied by the terrible premise, that makes getting into the stories seem kinda pointless.

As for Tolkien and other SF/F of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th Century, male dominated stories tended to be the norm, and most good writers of the genres didn't really break that mold before the 60s/70s.

Posted By: Shanko9 Nov 05, 2002 - 12:52 am

I'm glad someone put a Tolkien section in here. I was getting disappointed as I moved down the list seeing no significant Tolkien. There was one post on JRR Tolkien's Hobbit.

This folder contained several ignorant comments unappreciative of Tolkien's masterful work. I do not need to say anything more, as most of what I may say Aslan has already addressed.

Tolkien is the father of the modern fantasy genre, and the master of description. He is a master linguist and brilliant Oxford professor. While the movies cannot be perfect, I find that watching them brings me back memories from the book. I have read the trilogy three times, and I am sure I will read it again.

Posted By: MerleZ Nov 05, 2002 - 12:11 pm

Personally, I'd like to hear more from Aslan about the three in one character of Frodo-Sam-Gollum. I'd never ever considered that, and missed your post originally, Aslan. Mind discoursing a bit?

Shanko9, better be careful when you say that Tolkien is for the more intellectual reader. Never know who you may offend. :-)

Posted By: Iznardi Nov 06, 2002 - 07:46 am

Haven't seen Aslan on the boards in quite a while.

I've been rereading parts of the books, including the appendices. I hope they are going to spend some time in the upcomng movie on exploring the character of Saruman more. I can't say I like the movie's interpretation of the character. Saruman never struck me as a cruel, arrogant, and malicious war leader. In fact, much of his character was shaped by fear--fear that he could not cope with Sauron unless he delved deeply into the dark arts or obtained the Ring. In one of the appendices, it's noted that he only moves into Orthanc about two years after Sauron reestablishes himself at Baradur (two years after Bilbo find the Ring). So even at that point, Saruman was anxious to find a stronghold and refuge to defend himself against the greater power.

The movie version, unfortunately, shows little of Saruman the master manipulator and too much of Saruman the overt agent of the Dark Lord (he did not, in fact, cause the blizzard on Caradhras--that was summoned up by Sauron; it is unlikely, too, that Saruman would have wanted the Fellowship to enter Moria; he had no agents there, and could have dealt with them far more effectively if they ventured the Gap of Rohan. Just one of many differences between book and movie that hurt the story. It was Aragorn, not Gandalf, who advocated the mountain path; Gandalf had suggested all along that they would have to go through Moria. Far from being afraid to enter it, as the movie implies, he saw it as the only route that could get them through the mountains without losing time and attracting too much attention.)

Posted By: Aslan Nov 12, 2002 - 03:55 pm

MerleZ, sorry 'bout the delay!

Let's put the threefold character in Freud's terminology. Gollum would be the Id - selfish, killer, would do anything for the pleasure of Precious. Sam would be Superego - ever sacrificing, selfless. Frodo is the Ego, balancing the two. He could not accomplish his mission, the destruction of the Ring, without both of them.

I think UK LeGuin wrote an essay about this.

Posted By: Iznardi Nov 13, 2002 - 08:33 am

Or you could use the Fruity Pebbles analogy. Frodo is the delicious box of Fruity Pebbles. Gollum is Fred, driven to acquire the Fruity Pebbles at any cost. Sam is Barney, trying to protect the Fruity Pebbles from Fred.

There's a longer version of this in which Saruman is the Lucky Charms leprechaun, Gandalf is Toucan Sam, and the hobbits are the Rice Krispies elves, but it's too complicated to reproduce here, and besides, you first have to send away for it with sixteen cereal box tops.

Posted By: Astaire Nov 13, 2002 - 09:18 am

Hi folks,

Iz you had me literally falling off my chair with that one. I was totally sucked into the topic and the you did the 'ol reverse whammy comedy post, heh

Thanks for the lift this morning

Posted By: Nomad Nov 13, 2002 - 10:18 am

Long time no see, Asaire. Yeah, Iz has been on a roll for a while now.

Posted By: Iznardi Nov 13, 2002 - 11:22 am

Being more serious . . .

I used up my holiday gift certificate to buy Rob Inglis' reading of The Fellowship of the Ring on CD and have been listening to it in the car (that's what I get for buying a car with a CD player and no tape deck!). No matter how many times I read or hear the Lord of the Rings, I always discover new things. Right now I'm looking at the interrelationship of the four hobbits, Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam. The new movie version eliminated much of what's in the book. For instance, Peter Jackson got rid of the master/servant relationship between Frodo and Sam (a mistake in my opinion). I've noticed in the book, Sam often refers not only to "Master Frodo" but also to "Master Peregrin" and "Master Meridadoc" on occasion. The fact that he is a social inferior, but usually treated as an equal, and often more far-seeing than the others, is one of the charms of his character that I think Peter Jackson should have retained. It's interesting, too, that Merry, in the book, is really the wealthy young gentleman (even more than Frodo). He drops the Brandybuck name at times, like at the inn at Bree, and his conversation shows that he is known and treated with respect by many people in the eastern shire and the Breelands. Again, I wish they had not turned him into an impish prankster in the movie ("Oi, I think I broken sumthin"--Merry would never have said that, he never speaks like a yeoman farmer). Pippin is more like a younger son in a large family, usually a follower rather than a leader, and someone struggling to get attention (he is always voicing an opinion or objection, and at times seems very frustrated that Aragorn or Gandalf don't heed him as much as the others).

At some point Jackson must have been modeling the hobbits more closely after the book. He retains certain aspects of their different social standing in the costumes--Merry wears a showy kind of vest under his rustic suit, the mark of country gentry. Frodo also wears suit and vest. Pippin is a bit more casually dressed, and Sam wears plebian clothing.

Posted By: Dark Knight Jan 06, 2003 - 03:41 pm

New Tolkien Book Found

A new, previously unpublished book by Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien was discovered by accident in a box at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, England, the News.com.au Web site reported. The yellowing 2,000-page handwritten manuscript contains Tolkien's translation and appraisal of the epic Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, which is thought to have inspired The Lord of the Rings, the news site reported.

Michael Drout, an assistant professor of English at Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., found the Tolkien material by accident in a box of papers while researching Anglo-Saxon scholarship at the Bodleian, the news site reported. Tolkien's translation of Beowulf and his line-by-line interpretation of its meaning will be published next summer.

From http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire

Posted By: jodyjuice03 Apr 01, 2004 - 08:56 pm

Question....for those of you that have read the trilogy...

We all know that Aragorn was Isildur's heir, but Isildur was not the last king of Gondor. I checked out the Appendices in ROTK and there were many kings after him.

Could it be that Isildur was the last descendant of Numenor to rule, and Aragorn was the first since him to assume the throne of Men?

Posted By: MerleZ Apr 07, 2004 - 05:22 am

No, jodyjuice. The line of Isildur ruled Arnor until that kingdom was destroyed in the final war with Angmar. Arvedui was the last King of Arnor. Even though the Kingdom was destroyed, the line of Isildur endured.

Gondor came to Arnor's aid in that last war, and the King of Gondor, Earnur, attempted to do battle with the Witch King (later determined to be the Lord of the Ringwraiths). However, Earnur's horse became terrified at the Witch King's approach, and bolted. Years later, the Witch King challenged Earnur to single combat. Earnur accepted the challenge, and went alone to Minas Morgul. He never returned. Earnur was childless. He left the Steward in command until his return, which of course never came. There were no other heirs of the line of Anarion (Elendil's younger son, and Isildur's brother) to take up the crown of Gondor.

So, there was no king in Gondor, and the North Kingdom of Arnor was destroyed. The heirs of Isildur roamed the Wild as Rangers of the north. Each heir in turn was fostered by Elrond in Rivendell, until Aragorn. And Aragorn's claim to the throne of Gondor was a bit murky, since that kingdom had been entrusted to the line of Anarion, not Isildur.

Posted By: MerleZ Apr 07, 2004 - 05:25 am

And by the way, Jodyjuice, if you read the Lord of the Rings, this is made clear.

Posted By: jodyjuice03 Apr 09, 2004 - 07:54 am

Well, excuse me! I did read the trilogy, i just got a little confused!

Posted By: MerleZ Apr 20, 2004 - 08:51 am

Sorry, jodyjuice, didn't mean to make it sound like I was scolding you!