Lord of the Rings discussion thread

[Neon Knight]

The way it climaxed was a poignant piece on the corruptability of man, I think, possibly even a comment on the necessity of strong and true friendships. The ring eventually corrupted Frodo at the very end, and only by chance did the world get saved. At one point, Samwise offered to take the yoke of the ring from Frodo but he resisted. You can kind of interpret that as someone who wields an absolute power being unwilling to share it. Of course, it is "Frodos Burden" so I understand why that happened, but perhaps Frodo letting Samwise take it to Mt.Doom, he would have been able to finally throw it into the pit, having been burdened by it less time and able to part with it more easily. I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic, I'd actually argue it is a realistic piece. When you stand at the precipice of something like that in those do-or-die situations, many people will do something that naturally contradicts their deeply held beliefs/whatever.

And of course, not all fiction is meant to be wholly realistic. It wouldn't be an epic if Frodo had simply been stabbed at some battle or slipped in the shower at an Inn on his way to Rivendell. A completion of the entire tale, as in LOTR, means it's going to be a whole story. Although countless times through history, we have seen absolutely unbelievable tales of heroes aided seemingly by fate in a series of consecutive coincidences that almost seem impossible. Sure, it doesn't happen. The average person donning armour in the middle ages doesn't always come home, and in his old age, write a tale of the ages. But immortalized in many stories and history books we've seen crazy things.

It's best to simply think of LOTR like that.

I wasn't saying the events of the story were unrealistic, but the character of Gollum and the situation of the meek hobbits in a hostile world. I prefer the Silmarillion in that way.

[Neon Knight]

Tolkien's own attitude toward the Elves changed between "The Hobbit" and LOTR. The Elves of Rivendell are pretty silly, very different from the high, though flawed, (as shown in the Silmarillion) nobility which they manifest in LOTR.

J.R.R. Tolkien - On Fairy-Stories (1947):

"Yet I suspect that this flower-and-butterfly minuteness was also a product of 'rationalization', which transformed the glamour of Elfland into mere finesse, and invisibility into a fragility that could hide in a cowslip or shrink behind a blade of grass. It seems to become fashionable soon after the great voyages had begun to make the world seem too narrow to hold both men and elves."

[Hydromorphone]

I wasn't saying the events of the story were unrealistic, but the character of Gollum and the situation of the meek hobbits in a hostile world. I prefer the Silmarillion in that way.

Oh true, my good friend. Either way I'd still say that it's almost necessary for much of fiction to be unrealistic in some aspects to tell an engaging story, but that's still a valid point.

[Neon Knight]

Oh true, my bad friend. Either way I'd still say that it's almost necessary for much of fiction to be unrealistic in some aspects to tell an engaging story, but that's still a valid point.

Yeah - there is a balance to be struck between drama and believability. I still very much like LotR overall, despite my criticisms.

Bad friend?

[Hydromorphone]

Yeah - there is a balance to be struck between drama and believability. I still very much like LOTR overall, despite my criticisms.

Bad friend?

Holy shit, I don't know what happened there, but I genuinely meant to type "my good friend". I honestly have no idea how bad got in there. Must be one of those things where if you're distracted you type weird things. I remember a few years ago on an old forum I was writing "blah blah you pay the price" and I wrote "blah blah you play the pussy". Strange

[Neon Knight]

I remember the first time I got The Hobbit aged 13 from a library. The original green and black cover and the map - it was magical.

[Svipdag]

I never heard anyone with a nice thing to say about David Day's books, to be sure. But I bought and enjoyed (twice) his Tolkien encyclopedia when I was a wee lad.




Hi Svipdag, long time no "see".

I think the issue is that the elves of the Hobbit are not the elves of the Silmarillion originally. Only later did Tolkien retroactively place "There and Back Again" within the mythology of the 'Elder Days" he had been working on previously. ( during and after publishing Lord of the Rings, in fact)




and much clearer later, he is more specific.



I'd say it seems to have worked out quite well, though.

I'd say that that is a bit of an understatement.

[Hydromorphone]

I remember the first time I got The Hobbit aged 13 from a library. The original green and black cover and the map - it was magical.

We actually read the Hobbit up here in Canada when my class was in Gr.8 / gradeschool. I'm sure a lot went over our head as we were only 13 but it was a pretty crazy and fun experience to read such a cultured and fantastic book at such a young age. It was definitely above the regular fare you usually have to read as part of the generalized curriculum at that age or grade level.

Although sadly we had the new cover, which was all black with Smaug gilded red at the bottom, I believe. I prefer the older/more classic cover you posted.

[Proctor]

I still wonder about who the hell is Tom Bombadil actually

He is an enigma

[i'llseeyouinhell]

That trilogy...I don't know how many times i watch it but i can still watch it with excitement.