The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Attic Treasures => Topic started by: WeirdRaptor on September 11, 2006, 11:02:06 PM
-
Man, I can never get enough of those books. The detail and craftsmanship that Tolkien put into that book was just stunning. The characters are amazing, and actually quite deep when you stop and look at them. The story is simple, but complex, at the same time, and it excellently executed.
I just can't tell you everything I just absolutely adore about these books.
But what about you? What do you think of these books?
-
I too love the lord of the rings. While I see where the frequent reproach of the books being "long winded" comes from I can't say it bothered me at all. Very often "long winded" parts (the council of Elrond is very often named as one of these) answer many questions which would otherwise keep nagging the more interested reader.
On the other hand I see why some parts of the book (e.g. Tom Bombadil) were not mentioned in the movies as they contributed not too much to the basic story while providing the stuff for many more stories all by themselves. Speaking of other stories, the appendixes of LOTR include many events not mentioned in the book itself, yet still of great interest to anyone interested in Tolkien's world. While the focus of "The Return of the King" is of course on Mordor (Frodo and Sam), and Minas Tirith (Aragorn, Gandalf etc.) other events took place at the same time. Armies of Sauron attacked Lothlorien, Fangorn (most Ents were killed there), and Erebor (the lonely Mountain known from "The Hobbit". Several characters from "The Hobbit were killed during that fact).
I must admit I haven't yet read the Simarillion and I must further admit that I'm under the influence of many people (Tolkien fans among them) who don't like the book at all. Nonetheless I guess I will read it if I get hold of it at the library.
I like the lord of the rings for being a fantasy book which (while sometimes considered the genesis of fantasy genre, which I consider a disputable claim) didn't sport many clichÈs of fantasy literature which spoiled some of the later fantasy writings.
-
The Simarillion basically covers most of the events prior to the Hobbit, The creation of Middle-eArth and the Valar, the revolt of Morgoth(who can be seen as a stand-in for the devil), and provides background for many of the references made in the trilogy especially by the elves.
-
Yes, I knew that much. I have read some secondary literature about Tolkien's work so I have some basic knowledge about the Valar, about Morgoth, the N?menor, about Beren and L?thien. Nevertheless I should read the Simarillon when I get my hands on it.
-
Then get the book at the earliest opportunity. What other Tolkien books have you read Malte?
-
I'd highly recommend "The Silmarillion", Malte, but beware, Christopher Tolkien actually finished it for his father (Christopher ain't no J.R.R. of writing), and the editing and such for the book almost borderlines on being Frankenstein-ish, but it still provides excellent backstory for Middle-Earth.
-
Christopher merely finished the book, 80% of it was JRR's work.
-
He still edited it, and it DOES have a hack-and-slash feel to it.
-
I grant you that Christopher didn't have his father's flair for writing or editing, but at least he completed the book. Would you prefer that he have left the material unfinished?
-
You miss my point. I wasn't saying that C. Tolkine shouldn't have finished, so don't put things into my mouth. I was warning Malte about the cut-and-paste feel of the book as I found it highly distracting, so I thought I give someone else a head's up. Got a problem with that?!
-
Easy! No reason at all to get agitated about anything. Once I get the book and read it I shall make up my own opinion and tell you about it.
-
Sorry about that, Nick. I lost me temper again.
As I said, I recommend the book to anyone wanting to know more about Middle-Earth, but due to the fact that it wasn't actually finished by J.R.R., himself, it does lack a certain touch, and it isn't edited well. That is something I found to be downside, Nick, not something that actually makes me hate the book. I probably should have been clearer, earlier.
-
I have an audio play of "The lord of the rings" and one of "The Hobbit" (which I read too and of which I have a very good comic version as well) on eleven respectively four CDs. Regretably the Audio plays are in German :( I'm sure you would like them WR.
I know audio plays of the two books exist in America too (saw them myself at Barnes and Nobles during my exchange) but I don't know how popular they are. Apart from the secondary literature on Tolkien's books I also have some on the movies with planning sketches etc. and one dealing with Gollum in particular (I used that one, among other, for my Gollum / Mr. Hyde university essay which I mentioned elsewhere before.
-
That's alright Wr, I didn't take anything you said personally. I liked the Silmarillion, although i think JRR would have done things a bit differently had he lived to finish the book. I know German fairly well, so I'd be interested in hearing the story in German. :) I can do a mean gollum imitation "my preciouss". :lol:
-
I probably would like them. I'd have to work on my German a lot more before I can listen to them, I'm just now getting to learn the language (German is the foreign language I'm learning in college, I chose it because my strongest ancestry is German).
-
Not to discourage anyone, but German if compared to English, is a really difficult language. I heard many people talk who thought they were reasonably well at it, but didn't utter a single correct sentence, just because there are so many more forms etc. to be regarded in German. There are languages more difficult than German, but English is certainly a lot easier.
I can do a mean gollum imitation "my preciouss".
Yes, I too can send my young cousin running and screaming (or else attacking me) if I do my imitation of Gollum.
-
I'm beginning to learn that the hard way, but I do intend on having a long stay in Germany some day, and I don't plan to do it walking around with a translater just to be able to converse in the country's native language. (I understand that most people in Germany probably know English because your'e surrounded by countries that don't speak German as their native language, but still.)
-
When I went to Germany 5 years ago, I found I was able to converse pretty well in German. German is a more difficult language than English, and while I'm ok at it, I still have trouble with proper use of nouns (der die das, etc)
-
Yeah, I have a hard time with that, too.
Speaking of audio cassettes. I have a CD collection of "The Silmarillion" on audio.
-
You have? That's really cool! I wasn't aware that there was an audio version of the Simarillion.
If ever anyone feels really secure about the own German I could send him or her land before time audio plays which have been released but only over here. They are short stories, but very nicely done indeed. I sent them to Platvoet already who is quite capable of understanding German (there are many similarities between Dutch and German).
-
Yep. Right now its being barrowed by a cousin who's just now getting into Tolkien. It was a really good British actor reading it!
Hmm. Sending me the German sets might want to wait until after I've successfully mastered the language.
-
When I went to Germany 5 years ago, I found I was able to converse pretty well in German.
Kannst Du mir ein bisschen was auf Deutsch schreiben Nick?
-
i can also speak some german just not enough to talk to someone.
-
Ja, verstimmt mein Freund. Ich habe sehr viel zu lernen von mich bis im Deuschland.
-
If you would like to get some correction, practice, whatever to improve your German I would be happy to help, as there is so much about the language which can be mixed up, confused etc.
-
Are you refering to me or raptor?
-
The offer goes to both of you. Perhaps I was refering to you in particular as I have seen some of your German already, but the offer goes to both of you.
-
How is my German, on a scale of 1 to 5? 1 means pathetic, and 5 means execellent. Personally, I'm just Ok, in my virew, but as a native german you'd have a better idea of my abilities...
-
I dislike to grade anyone on a scale. While I know what you meant to say what you wrote in German literally means:
"Yes, angry my friend. I have very much to learn from myself to in Germany."
So there is room for improvement :)
-
:bang So much for those 4 semesters of college German :P: But I was merely average , gradewise in them anyway.
-
I have 2 questions I was wondering about for a long time:
1) What happened to the Entwives? Were they all killed? In some sources Tolkien says they probably were, but then I found this quote:
As for the Entwives: I do not know. ... But I think in TT, 80-81 it is plain that there would be for the Ents no re-union in 'history' -- but Ents and their wives being rational creatures would find some 'earthly paradise' until the end of this world: beyond which the wisdom neither of Elves nor Ents could see. Though maybe they shared the hope of Aragorn that they were 'not bound for ever to the circles of the world and beyond them is more than memory.' .... Letters, 419 (#338)
This is rather confusing. If the Ents cannot have any reunion in “history”, so why is paradise that they are supposed to find called “earthly”? Do you have any ideas?
2) Who killed the leader of the Nazgul - Merry or Eowyn? Eowyn struck him on his head while Merry just wounded him in his knee, but Eowyn's sword was just a normal weapon, so it shouldn't do any harm to a magical creature, while Merry's sword was able to do so.
There can be also some misunderstanding about the prophecy: it stated that “no living man could harm the Nazgul”. But does the term “man” indicate a gender, so it means that the Nazgul wouldn’t be killed by a man, but by a woman or did it indicate a race, so that means he wouldn't be killed by a man, but by a hobbit?
-
1) What happened to the Entwives? Were they all killed? In some sources Tolkien says they probably were, but then I found this quote
As for the Entwives: I do not know. ... But I think in TT, 80-81 it is plain that there would be for the Ents no re-union in 'history' -- but Ents and their wives being rational creatures would find some 'earthly paradise' until the end of this world: beyond which the wisdom neither of Elves nor Ents could see. Though maybe they shared the hope of Aragorn that they were 'not bound for ever to the circles of the world and beyond them is more than memory.' .... Letters, 419 (#338)
This is rather confusing. If the Ents cannot have any reunion in “history”, so why is paradise that they are supposed to find called “earthly”? Do you have any ideas?
To my knowledge, that bit in "The Lord of the Rings" is the only source disclosing the entwives, really. However, the story never really does conclude what happened to them, but an acquaintance of Sam Gamgee did see a walking tree in some woods, once.
Yes, Tolkien said they probably were killed. Perhaps, but he never reveals outright, to my knowledge, anyway.
"Earthyl paradise" is basically just that. As good as its gonna get on this earth, then at the End, they'll be reuinited, one way or the other.
2) Who killed the leader of the Nazgul - Merry or Eowyn? Eowyn struck him on his head while Merry just wounded him in his knee, but Eowyn's sword was just a normal weapon, so it shouldn't do any harm to a magical creature, while Merry's sword was able to do so.
There can be also some misunderstanding about the prophecy: it stated that “no living man could harm the Nazgul”. But does the term “man” indicate a gender, so it means that the Nazgul wouldn’t be killed by a man, but by a woman or did it indicate a race, so that means he wouldn't be killed by a man, but by a hobbit?
Eowyn. Merry just jabbed enough to distract him long enough for the other "non-man" to finish him off. The prophesy surrounding the Witch King was very literally minded. No "human male" could harm the Witch King, but a hobbit and a woman could. Its as simple as that.
-
As for the ents the males probably were very much decimated as well. They had to fight yet another battle after they took Isengard:
'Hoom, well that is fair enough,' said Treebeard; 'for to be sure Ents have played their part. And not only in dealing with that, hoom, that accursed tree-slayer that dwelt here. For ere was a great inrush of those, bu·rum, thosos evileyed-blackhanded-bowlegged-flinthearted-clawfingered-foulbellied-bloodthirsty, morimaitesincahonda, hoom, well, since you are hasty folk and their full name is as long as years of torment, those vermin of orcs; and they came over the River and down from the North and all round the wood of LaurelindÛrenan, which they could not get into, thanks to the Great ones who are here.'He bowed to the Lord and Lady of LÛrien.
'And these same foul creatures were more than surprised to meet us out on the Wold, for they had not heard of us before; though that might be said also of better folk. And not many will remember us, for not many escaped us alive, and the River had most of those. But it was well for you, for if they had not met us, then the king of the grassland would not have ridden far, and if he had there would have been no home to return to.'
Treebeard's face became sad. 'Forests may grow,' he said. 'Woods may spread. But no Ents. There are no Entings.'
'Yet maybe there is now more hope in your search,' said Aragorn. 'Lands will lie open to you eastward that have long been closed.'
But treebeard shook his head and said: 'It is far to go. And there are too many Men there in these days. [...]
Then Treebeard said farewell to each of them in turn, and he bowed three times slowly and with great reverence to Celeborn and Galadriel. 'It is long, since we met by stock or by stone, A vaimar, vanim·lon nostari!' he said. 'It is sad that we should meet only thus at the ending. For the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air. I do not think we shall meet again.'
And Celeborn said: 'I do not know, Eldest.' But Galadriel said: 'Not in Middle-earth, nor until the lands that lie under the wave are lifted up again. Then in the willow-meads of Tasarinan we may meet in the Spring. Farewell!'
The wikipedia article on Ents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ent) (for whose relieablility I can give no guarantee) reads:
There used to be Entwives (literally "Ent-women"), but they started to move farther away from the Ents because they liked to plant and control things, so they moved away to the region that would later become the Brown Lands across the Great River Anduin, though the male Ents still visited them. The Entwives taught the race of Men much about the art of agriculture. However, this entire area was destroyed by Sauron (most likely during the War of the Last Alliance), and the Entwives disappeared. The Ents looked for them but never found them. It is sung by the Ents that one day they will find each other. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Samwise Gamgee mentions his cousin Hal claims to have seen a treelike giant in the north of the Shire. However, this might have been merely a reference to the size of the creature. At the time of writing, the concept of Ents had not yet entered Tolkien's mind, and nothing further was done with the idea.
During the Fangorn episode, Merry and Pippin tell Treebeard about the Shire. Treebeard says the Entwives would like that land. This, combined with the giant-sighting by Sam's cousin Hal mentioned above, has led to some speculation that the Entwives may now live near the Shire. However, Tolkien has stated in Letters #144: 'I think that in fact the Entwives have disappeared for good, being destroyed with their gardens in the War of the Last Alliance….[citation needed]
-
As for the prophecy of the ring wraith, it may have refered to both, gender and "species". However, I do have the impression that the role of Eowyn was stressed. From what I read Tolkien was very dissatisfied with the outcome of the prophecies in Shakespeare's Macbeth. One of the prophecies was:
Macbeth will never be vanquish'd until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him"
Shakespeare had that prophecy fulfilled by having the soldiers attacking Macbeth attaching treebranches to their armour to camouflage their numbers (Tolkien came up with the Ents as a way which he thought Shakespeare should have taken). The other Macbeth prophecy Tolkien "improved" was this one:
"none of woman born shall harm Macbeth"
Shakespeare fulfilled that prophecy by having Macduff, the slayer of Macbeth, being born by Caesarean section while Tolkien took the more obvious approach by making a woman the vanquisher of the Witchking. Fighting women (e.g. Joan of Arc, Margaret of Anjou) are usually presented very negative in Shakespeare's plays.
-
Yes, the Entwives are gone, at least they are assumed to be.,.. It was Eowyn who killed the Witch-King...Merry's attempts only cost him his blade, for it was consumed by fire after piercing the Witch King..
-
Speaking of blades:
Eowyn's sword was just a normal weapon, so it shouldn't do any harm to a magical creature, while Merry's sword was able to do so.
While there are many magical swords in the lord of the rings there I don't think there is any statement claiming that it takes a magical blade to hurt a ring wraith.
-
While Eowyn's sword was not magical, like Merry's was, it didn't matter. Merry's magical sword was unable to kill the Witch king, yet Eowyn's normal sword was, because she was a woman, and thus fuilfilled the prophecy. She was the only one who could have fulfilled the prophecy..
-
Or perhaps Merry's sword was able to break the key enchantments protecting the Witchking, as well as distracting him, so that Eowyn's blade could finish the job. Just one idea.
-
As you've already noticed by our previous skirmish I have a moderate to strong disliking for extremely popular things... I never got into this series, and I thought the movies (mainly the first one, the second one was better about it) were rather long, I don't read a lot of books though, I just don't prefer it, but that's just my opinion
-
I guess it partly depends on our readiness to invest more time in reading a book than it would take to watch a movie. The fascination of a book also depends on our phantasy and our ability to imagine what we see spelled out in letters rather than having it presented in actual pictures which are more prescriptive than descriptive. As far as I am concerned books usually are much better than any movies based on the books. The only case I can think of where I think a movie exceeded the book it was based on was "The animals of Farthing Wood" (and as it was made a TV series they had a lot more time to tell the story than they would have if they had tried to make it one single movie).
As for the killing of the witch king I still don't see any line in the lord of the rings that would suggest that it took any magical blade to injure him. The prophecy (who was the one to make that prophecy anyway? I don't think they mention this important detail anywhere in the book) is about who can(not) kill the witch king, not about which kind of weapon it takes.
-
There were two things I liked in the movie: The ghost army kicking butt and the Ents doing likewise.
I am on The Two Towers, and it is my kind of book. I can't wait until I finish it and begin reading Return of the King.
-
I've read some of the middle earth books quite often when I was younger, though I've not read them for years, I did enjoy reading them then, and listening to the lord of the rings once on audio cassette I checked out once, as well as reading the books many times.
I like the first 2 movies, I've not seen the third one yet, I"ll eventually get it on dvd.
-
I found some links on youtube of Tolkien reciting various things from his middle earth books. I remember listening to most of those a cassette way back. There are 3 of Christopher Tolkien reading from a bit of a story from the first age also. Hope the folks don't mind. One of the things has Tolkien speaking elvish.
Troll sat alone on his seat of stone (2.40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9WmxwgW2J0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9WmxwgW2J0)
J.R.R. Tolkien recites the Ring Verse ( .56 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s59oDfDoI8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s59oDfDoI8&feature=related)
J.R.R. Tolkien reciting "Nam·ri”" (in actual elven) ( .51 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6de_SbVUVfA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6de_SbVUVfA&feature=related)
J.R.R. Tolkien reads from 'The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark' (9.51 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VOdv2RE4jg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VOdv2RE4jg&feature=related)
Tolkien Interview from 1971 with the bbc 4 radio (9.53 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-G_v6-u3hg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-G_v6-u3hg)
JRR Tolkien Reads LOTR - An Entish Chant (1.07 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPV63iW6gFM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPV63iW6gFM)
"Of Beren and Luthien" read by Christopher Tolkien part 1 (1.32 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqRDDDW2leY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqRDDDW2leY)
"Of Beren and Luthien" read by Christopher Tolkien part 2/1 (6.02 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmhRs-RfNr4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmhRs-RfNr4)
"Of Beren and Luthien" read by Christopher Tolkien part 2/2 (4.32 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7qoZgcdrgI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7qoZgcdrgI)
"Of Beren and Luthien" read by Christopher Tolkien part 3 (8.07 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ac6kAcCQE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ac6kAcCQE)
-
Christopher lee was the only one among the cast ogf the film trilogy to hsve meet Tolkein. He's a LOTR fanatic, and was the resident expert on minuate.
-
That is interesting. I never heard that or knew that about him.
-
Yes, I also heard that to Christopher Lee participating in this movie meant really something like the fulfillment of a dream. One of us participating as an acting character in a land before time movie; something like that ;)
Therefore Christopher Lee was quite angry when all scenes including him were cut from the cinema version of the lord of the rings (something I can well understand as the special extended edition DvD version was certainly improved by including those scenes). Anyway I don't mean to get of topic by talking about the movie rather than the book.
-
They did eventually compromise, although in the books the denounement comes in the middle of the third book, and SAruman and Grimsa eventually end up taking over the Shire. the scenes were cut from the third film, he appeared in the first two..
-
I guess he waits till Gandalf and Elrond leave middle earth then he takes over the shire in the movie version.
-
No, that part was never filmed. in the falm Saruman is stabbed in the back by Grima and he falls to his death at orthanc.
-
So what happens at the shire in the books happens at Orthanc? I guess the cut out the shire stuff for time since that could be a fourth film all by itself.
-
The only reference to the scouring of the Shire in the movies is an image which Frodo sees in Galadriel's mirror. The movies have Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to an unspoiled Shire whereas in the book Saruman had taken over.
For the movie they decided to move a similar scene (with Grima killing Saruman and Grima getting killed by Legolas instead of some halflings) from the end of the return of the king to the beginning of it. This probably was a wise move as many not so enthusiastic fans of LOTR complained that the movie was going on for too long after the destruction of the ring.
It may be hard for not so enthusiastic fans to appreciate the message of the scenes after the destruction of the ring; the fact, that is, that there is not simply a "happy end" but that some scars of the war will never heal, that the elves are leaving middle earth, that a new age begins.
-
True, they likely want a simple action movie with a simple ending, not anything complicated.
-
This judgement seems a bit too harsh on the movie in my opinion. There were of course scenes clearly made for the sake of action (Tolkien would probably rotate in his grave if he had seen the Helm's Deep scene where Legolas is "surfing" down a stair on a shield), but the was more to the movie than mere action. Had they really made it a pure action movie there would not have been so many scenes after the destruction of the ring and they would not have bothered to include many other aspects either.
There are a few things which perhaps could have been improved, but altogether I think they did really well considering the tremendous task of turning that book into a movie. In spite of the relocation of Saruman's death I think the ending was far from being "simple".