Under the Influence: The Lord of the Rings

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

There may be no other modern work which has so completely defined and
then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the Rings. Written by John
Ronald Reuel (J.R.R.) Tolkien and published in the three volumes of The
Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King, The
Lord of the Rings tells the tale of a small, unlikely hero, the Hobbit
named Frodo Baggins, and his friends'involvement in a quest to destroy
the most powerful and malevolent device ever created in the world of
Middle-Earth.

The Lord of the Rings absolutely defines the "epic fantasy", and
influences virtually all other forms of fantasy, at least as much as E.
E. "Doc" Smith's works defined "space opera" and influenced most other
branches of SF in one way or another. However, where Doc's works have
faded from general knowledge and even the genre he invented has greatly
evolved away from its original roots, Tolkien's classic work remains
staggeringly successful, a towering presence that completely dominates
the field.

I first encountered The Hobbit as a few paragraphs in someone's report
in junior high school; it didn't grab me, probably because the selected
piece (Bilbo VS the spiders) lacked the background that makes that
confrontation so powerful to read. But later, in high school (possibly
even in that magic year of 1977) I was introduced to The Lord of the
Rings and The Hobbit, its supposed prequel, and I was immediately
captured, entranced by this world.

And it was the world that captured me. The characters of Lord of the
Rings are not terribly detailed as characters; while they have enough
quirks to make them distinct, they are for the most part archetypes
which Tolkien derived from his deep and broad knowledge of folktales,
myth, and legend. His characters are often powerful images because of
this, but at the same time they often leave considerable questions open
about what they're like as people outside of the requirements of the quest.

This isn't, of course, terribly important in this sort of book. The
point is the world and the quest, and these are extremely compelling.
Tolkien was originally drawn into this project by his love of languages;
he invented his first artificial language when he was quite young, and
to a great extent it was the desire to build these languages into a
comprehensible and sensible framework that underlay the construction of
Middle-Earth. This, combined with his very deep knowledge of myths and
legends and an interest in constructing a uniquely British myth-cycle of
his own, produced the universe of Lord of the Rings.

Certainly it was the Appendices – with their notes on language, on
unique alphabets which were not mere substitution ciphers of the
standard alphabet, fragments of legends and events thousands of years in
the past – that gave me the feeling of awesome spans of time and depths
of reality that infused Middle-Earth. I could see the immense work
devoted to that universe, and it was (and is) one of the few things that
left me feeling humbled when I contemplated what he had done, and how
much work had gone into that construction.

The work, of course, would be pointless if the story it supported
didn't work, but work it does. For some, the language is overwrought,
ponderous, and the story takes far too long to get moving; but to me,
the stage-setting of the Birthday Party, of the hints of danger
interspersed with the protagonist Frodo just mostly going on with his
life, are necessary parts of what comes after. We couldn't empathize so
much with Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin and their concern for their
homeland the Shire if we had not seen the Shire, and recognized how
precious that quiet, semi-hidden land is – how mundane, yet
extraordinary, just as are its inhabitants, the diminutive Hobbits.

Tolkien's vision pretty much defined all the key players in epic sagas
– the Old Wise Wizard, the Lost King, the Dark Lord, the small yet
important little persons, modern views of Dwarves, the noble Elves, etc.
– and yet it is interesting to note that many of the later
interpretations of those roles, though clearly inspired by Tolkien's,
almost invert them in practice.

Gandalf is called a wizard and is, in fact, a being of great power, yet
we almost never see him using that power. There are literally only a
handful of times in Lord of the Rings where he does anything magically
impressive. This contrasts with many other works, in which the defining
trait of a wizard/mage is that he throws around magic. D&D took this to
the extreme; low-level wizards are so fragile that if they didn't have
magic they'd be insane to step outdoors, while higher-level wizards can
level towns in a fit of pique.

Similarly, Aragorn is the Lost King, a descendant of an ancient line
destined to inherit the greatest mortal kingdom on the planet. Yet,
unlike many of his later parallels, his greatest fame and skill is not
being a great warrior – although he is one – but a great healer. It is
in fact this characteristic that is considered one of the signs that he
is, in fact, the destined King.

As another example, the primary antagonist of the entire trilogy, the
Dark Lord Sauron, isn't even seen directly at any point in the trilogy.
There is a brief vision of him in a Palantir by Pippin, and a few others
describe their views or visions of him, but in actuality the Big Bad
never puts in an appearance in the whole trilogy. There is no dramatic
confrontation, no Villain Rant, nothing. Sauron isn't even really a
character. For all the effect his personal actions have on the plot he
might as well be a natural disaster or a random encounter generator. In
other works, it is almost invariably the case that the Big Bad will, and
must, be confronted by the Heroes at the end of the series.

This kind of twisted distillation isn't unusual, of course; in my
writeup of Robert E. Howard's work I pointed out that Conan is often
envisioned by those unfamiliar with the original as a none-too-bright
musclebound killing machine, while in actuality Conan was close to, if
not actually, a genius, master of multiple languages and customs, a
thief and a tactician and strategist of great skill, with his own sense
of honor, decency, and fair play that often differentiated him from the
so-called "civilized" people around them.

The whole trilogy, in fact, spends considerable time undermining many
typical tropes of adventure fiction and many myths, making victory due
not to force of arms or heroic last stands or physical strength or
magic, but due to little people's dogged persistence, endurance,
dedication, and essential goodness that allows them to withstand the
lure of the most corruptive force in the world for vastly longer than
anyone else could manage. Victory is also clearly due to moral
superiority – the willingness to not kill when possible, to show mercy,
and to allow for a chance of redemption, even when it seems impossible.

To an extent, of course, it's also a highly religious story. In the
end, victory isn't due to any of the Hobbits' actions; it's due to
Smeagol/Gollum grabbing the Ring and falling off the edge, an event
which is very nearly said to be due to "providence", to in effect God
making sure things worked out that way. Gandalf discusses this with
Frodo – that he was meant to have the Ring, that Smeagol might still
have a part to play, and so on, all words that imply the need for Faith
and the existence of some sort of Grand Plan. The origin of Middle-Earth
itself, told in The Silmarillion, has very strongly Christian aspects.

The Lord of the Rings influenced me most strongly in the desire to,
somehow, create a world that would have the same level of impact as
Middle-Earth – something that would have depth and solidity so that when
a reader kicked it, they'd say "wow, that feels almost real."

I realized, after some attempts, that I would never achieve that by
trying to duplicate Tolkien's efforts; while I did invent some languages
of my own, they were and are pale, pale imitations of what he was
capable of doing, mostly existing for symbolic/flavor purposes. Instead,
I had to focus on what mattered to me – making a world that *worked*.

Zarathan isn't built on a deep linguistic base or from someone's
career-deep knowledge of real-world myth and legend, but from my desire
to construct a world that makes sense to me, while still being magical
and strange. The world, therefore, won't feel like Middle-Earth in
detail… yet I hope that, for some people at least, the sensation of
something huge, something as big as the world itself, will cause the
same little chill down their spines as I got from reading Lord of the Rings.

If I can achieve that, even for a moment… then I've learned at least
some of the lessons that Professor Tolkien was trying to teach.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 12:17:53 UTC, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> The whole trilogy, in fact, spends considerable time undermining many
> typical tropes of adventure fiction and many myths, making victory due
> not to force of arms or heroic last stands or physical strength or
> magic, but due to little people's dogged persistence, endurance,
> dedication, and essential goodness that allows them to withstand the
> lure of the most corruptive force in the world for vastly longer than
> anyone else could manage. Victory is also clearly due to moral

> superiority - the willingness to not kill when possible, to show mercy,

> and to allow for a chance of redemption, even when it seems impossible.

Well, yes, but /also/ force of arms, heroic last
stands, physical strength - and hobbits do have
stamina - and magic; including perhaps "sufficiently
advanced technology" of dwarf-mail and elf-bread.
(Terry Pratchett didn't invent dwarf-bread -
it's PROBABLY not made of dwarfs - but he made
it memorable.)

Let's see, it's Frodo who acquires a very handy
flashlight, but Sam borrows it.

But I was thinking more of Gandalf confronting the,
yeah, that time. When the book could have ended
unexpectedly early.

And he can use a sword as well. Does D&D cover that?
For a wizard, I mean.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 2/17/15 7:48 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 12:17:53 UTC, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> The whole trilogy, in fact, spends considerable time undermining many
>> typical tropes of adventure fiction and many myths, making victory due
>> not to force of arms or heroic last stands or physical strength or
>> magic, but due to little people's dogged persistence, endurance,
>> dedication, and essential goodness that allows them to withstand the
>> lure of the most corruptive force in the world for vastly longer than
>> anyone else could manage. Victory is also clearly due to moral
>> superiority - the willingness to not kill when possible, to show mercy,
>> and to allow for a chance of redemption, even when it seems impossible.
>
> Well, yes, but /also/ force of arms, heroic last
> stands, physical strength - and hobbits do have
> stamina - and magic; including perhaps "sufficiently
> advanced technology" of dwarf-mail and elf-bread.
> (Terry Pratchett didn't invent dwarf-bread -
> it's PROBABLY not made of dwarfs - but he made
> it memorable.)

Tolkien had elf-bread (Lembas); the dwarves had a sort of field ration
type thing called _cram_, but I didn't think of it as bread.

>
> Let's see, it's Frodo who acquires a very handy
> flashlight, but Sam borrows it.

More a dazzle weapon.

>
> But I was thinking more of Gandalf confronting the,
> yeah, that time. When the book could have ended
> unexpectedly early.

"Looks like I'm going to have to fall on Glamdring if I'm going to get
any dying done on this adventure!" -- Nine Men and a Little Lady

>
> And he can use a sword as well. Does D&D cover that?
> For a wizard, I mean.
>

3e does, yes. You can choose to be proficient in any weapon you want.

Of course, with Gandalf it might have been racial proficiencies, since
he was effectively a demigod or angel, not a human being.

[Michael Ikeda]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:mbvdh5$6ds$1...@dont-email.me:

Although cram apparently looks a lot like lembas. When Gimli first
sees lembas he mistakes the lembas for cram. At least until he
tastes it.

(Gimli has just finished a lembas cake.)

"I thought it only a kind of cram, such as the Dalemen make for
journeys in the wild," said the Dwarf.

"So it is," they answered. "But we call it lembas or waybread, and
it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than cram, by all accounts."

(Gimli then praises the lembas, saying it is "better than the
honey-cakes of the Beornings".)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 12:52:31 UTC, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 2/17/15 7:48 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Terry Pratchett didn't invent dwarf-bread -
> > it's PROBABLY not made of dwarfs - but he made
> > it memorable.
>

> Tolkien had elf-bread (Lembas);

I think of lembas as like this but maybe without
probably artificial colouring.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Wafer>

You get a lot of crumbs. I think the crumbs are
mentioned.

> the dwarves had a sort of field ration
> type thing called _cram_, but I didn't think
> of it as bread.

Pratchett's dwarfs think of it to take their mind
off food. I think it's also considered a ranged
weapon of the throwing kind. (_Krull_ is on TV
this week.) Arms limitation treaties might have
been mentioned. And you see it in military
museums. But probably not in the cafe.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 13:11:03 UTC, Michael Ikeda wrote:
> Although cram apparently looks a lot like lembas. When Gimli first
> sees lembas he mistakes the lembas for cram. At least until he
> tastes it.
>
> (Gimli has just finished a lembas cake.)

One day's portion, I think I recall.

> "I thought it only a kind of cram, such as the Dalemen make for
> journeys in the wild," said the Dwarf.

But more elfy. It may not look /quite/ the same.
We don't find out what "cram" looks like.

"Dalemen" curiously takes me here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roots_of_the_Mountains>
but Dale is the land-bound settlement of Men
(i.e. not Lake-town) overlooked by the
Lonely Mountain in _The Hobbit_. Not Dwarf.

So, either Terry Pratchett /did/ invent dwarf-bread
(as opposed to Man-bread), or Gimli distinguishes
lembas from dwarf-bread by voluntarily eating lembas. :-)

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <d48f84ee-cbf9-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 12:52:31 UTC, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 2/17/15 7:48 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> > Terry Pratchett didn't invent dwarf-bread -
>> > it's PROBABLY not made of dwarfs - but he made
>> > it memorable.
>>
>> Tolkien had elf-bread (Lembas);
>
>I think of lembas as like this but maybe without
>probably artificial colouring.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Wafer>
>
>You get a lot of crumbs. I think the crumbs are
>mentioned.
>

I always thought of lembas as Little Debbie Oatmeal Cream Pies..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> There may be no other modern work which has so completely
> defined and then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the
> Rings.

Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 2/17/15 3:39 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> There may be no other modern work which has so completely
>> defined and then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the
>> Rings.
>
> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.
>
> [...]

There's a reason I tend to allow myself weasel words like "may".

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Yes, I remember that now. Still, my impression of Cram was something
more like a pemmican material. Maybe because it somehow crossed with
"Spam" in my head.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:17:37 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:mc0llq$kul$2...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2/17/15 3:39 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
>> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>> in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> There may be no other modern work which has so
>>> completely defined and then overshadowed a genre as
>>> The Lord of the Rings.

>> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.

> There's a reason I tend to allow myself weasel words like
> "may".

And ‘tend to’? <g> Likewise.

I wasn’t actually arguing: the implied question simply
caught my fancy.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
> Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
> Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
> One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
> In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
>
> One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
> One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
> In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
>
> There may be no other modern work which has so completely defined and
>then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the Rings. Written by John
>Ronald Reuel (J.R.R.) Tolkien and published in the three volumes of The
>Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King, The
>Lord of the Rings tells the tale of a small, unlikely hero, the Hobbit
>named Frodo Baggins, and his friends'involvement in a quest to destroy
>the most powerful and malevolent device ever created in the world of
>Middle-Earth.

Well yes, but also a quest not to be killed as innocent bystanders.

> The Lord of the Rings absolutely defines the "epic fantasy", and
>influences virtually all other forms of fantasy, at least as much as E.
>E. "Doc" Smith's works defined "space opera" and influenced most other
>branches of SF in one way or another. However, where Doc's works have
>faded from general knowledge and even the genre he invented has greatly
>evolved away from its original roots,

Mmmm, there's a discussion to be had.

> Tolkien's classic work remains
>staggeringly successful, a towering presence that completely dominates
>the field.

Yes indeed.

> I first encountered The Hobbit as a few paragraphs in someone's report
>in junior high school; it didn't grab me, probably because the selected
>piece (Bilbo VS the spiders) lacked the background that makes that
>confrontation so powerful to read. But later, in high school (possibly
>even in that magic year of 1977) I was introduced to The Lord of the
>Rings and The Hobbit, its supposed prequel, and I was immediately
>captured, entranced by this world.

I think I'd already read The Hobbit and was mostly unimpressed, but
then was handed LOTR and read it over a Thanksgiving weekend, could
literally hardly put it down.

> And it was the world that captured me. The characters of Lord of the
>Rings are not terribly detailed as characters; while they have enough
>quirks to make them distinct, they are for the most part archetypes
>which Tolkien derived from his deep and broad knowledge of folktales,
>myth, and legend. His characters are often powerful images because of
>this, but at the same time they often leave considerable questions open
>about what they're like as people outside of the requirements of the quest.

Here's the thing, if you're going to be an archetype, it's not clear
you get to also be a person. And vice-versa.

> This isn't, of course, terribly important in this sort of book. The
>point is the world and the quest, and these are extremely compelling.
>Tolkien was originally drawn into this project by his love of languages;
>he invented his first artificial language when he was quite young, and
>to a great extent it was the desire to build these languages into a
>comprehensible and sensible framework that underlay the construction of
>Middle-Earth. This, combined with his very deep knowledge of myths and
>legends and an interest in constructing a uniquely British myth-cycle of
>his own, produced the universe of Lord of the Rings.

It just may be that, after the fact, he played up the linguistic side
out of modesty or embarrasment or something.

> Certainly it was the Appendices – with their notes on language, on
>unique alphabets which were not mere substitution ciphers of the
>standard alphabet, fragments of legends and events thousands of years in
>the past – that gave me the feeling of awesome spans of time and depths
>of reality that infused Middle-Earth. I could see the immense work
>devoted to that universe, and it was (and is) one of the few things that
>left me feeling humbled when I contemplated what he had done, and how
>much work had gone into that construction.
>
> The work, of course, would be pointless if the story it supported
>didn't work, but work it does. For some, the language is overwrought,
>ponderous, and the story takes far too long to get moving;

Oh it did, but then it does get moving, and Tolkien just never took
the time to go back and edit the first part down in size.

> but to me,
>the stage-setting of the Birthday Party, of the hints of danger
>interspersed with the protagonist Frodo just mostly going on with his
>life, are necessary parts of what comes after. We couldn't empathize so
>much with Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin and their concern for their
>homeland the Shire if we had not seen the Shire, and recognized how
>precious that quiet, semi-hidden land is – how mundane, yet
>extraordinary, just as are its inhabitants, the diminutive Hobbits.
>
> Tolkien's vision pretty much defined all the key players in epic sagas
>– the Old Wise Wizard, the Lost King, the Dark Lord, the small yet
>important little persons, modern views of Dwarves, the noble Elves, etc.
>– and yet it is interesting to note that many of the later
>interpretations of those roles, though clearly inspired by Tolkien's,
>almost invert them in practice.

Tolkien is somewhat generous in LOTR, some of his backstory is not so
pretty.

> Gandalf is called a wizard and is, in fact, a being of great power, yet
>we almost never see him using that power.

It may be appropriate to look at Tolkien's buddy C.S. Lewis for more
perspectives on that. "It never was very proper", Ransom tells
Merlin, of the practice of magic. Of course this is very convenient
for real or imaginary magicians, they can hint at huge powers they
dare not call upon except at greatest need.

> There are literally only a
>handful of times in Lord of the Rings where he does anything magically
>impressive. This contrasts with many other works, in which the defining
>trait of a wizard/mage is that he throws around magic. D&D took this to
>the extreme; low-level wizards are so fragile that if they didn't have
>magic they'd be insane to step outdoors, while higher-level wizards can
>level towns in a fit of pique.

Very wise rhetorically and analytically, or else the details of the
magic overwhelm any conventional details and logic of the story.

> Similarly, Aragorn is the Lost King, a descendant of an ancient line
>destined to inherit the greatest mortal kingdom on the planet. Yet,
>unlike many of his later parallels, his greatest fame and skill is not
>being a great warrior – although he is one – but a great healer. It is
>in fact this characteristic that is considered one of the signs that he
>is, in fact, the destined King.

He is also patient and brave, and as with Siddartha, those may be his
greatest attributes. It's also what Peter Jackson completely raped in
his movie adaptation. Aragorn is the instrument of destiny, which is
as likely to destroy him in ignominious failure as it is to promote
him. Better to slack off and smoke pipe weed and just let stuff
happen, maybe, but no, he stays in the game - and wins the princess.

> As another example, the primary antagonist of the entire trilogy, the
>Dark Lord Sauron, isn't even seen directly at any point in the trilogy.
>There is a brief vision of him in a Palantir by Pippin, and a few others
>describe their views or visions of him, but in actuality the Big Bad
>never puts in an appearance in the whole trilogy. There is no dramatic
>confrontation, no Villain Rant, nothing. Sauron isn't even really a
>character. For all the effect his personal actions have on the plot he
>might as well be a natural disaster or a random encounter generator. In
>other works, it is almost invariably the case that the Big Bad will, and
>must, be confronted by the Heroes at the end of the series.

We never directly meet the dark eldil in Lewis, either. Cosmic forces
forbid him entering the field, too easily would the whole world be
lost, disappointing even the opponent.

> This kind of twisted distillation isn't unusual, of course; in my
>writeup of Robert E. Howard's work I pointed out that Conan is often
>envisioned by those unfamiliar with the original as a none-too-bright
>musclebound killing machine, while in actuality Conan was close to, if
>not actually, a genius, master of multiple languages and customs, a
>thief and a tactician and strategist of great skill, with his own sense
>of honor, decency, and fair play that often differentiated him from the
>so-called "civilized" people around them.
>
> The whole trilogy, in fact, spends considerable time undermining many
>typical tropes of adventure fiction and many myths, making victory due
>not to force of arms or heroic last stands or physical strength or
>magic, but due to little people's dogged persistence, endurance,
>dedication, and essential goodness that allows them to withstand the
>lure of the most corruptive force in the world for vastly longer than
>anyone else could manage. Victory is also clearly due to moral
>superiority – the willingness to not kill when possible, to show mercy,
>and to allow for a chance of redemption, even when it seems impossible.

Victory is due to the little people playing their roles in a cosmic
game so large they can barely see its parameters.

> To an extent, of course, it's also a highly religious story. In the
>end, victory isn't due to any of the Hobbits' actions; it's due to
>Smeagol/Gollum grabbing the Ring and falling off the edge, an event
>which is very nearly said to be due to "providence", to in effect God
>making sure things worked out that way. Gandalf discusses this with
>Frodo – that he was meant to have the Ring, that Smeagol might still
>have a part to play, and so on, all words that imply the need for Faith
>and the existence of some sort of Grand Plan. The origin of Middle-Earth
>itself, told in The Silmarillion, has very strongly Christian aspects.

That's half of being a wizard, just knowing the game that is afoot.

> The Lord of the Rings influenced me most strongly in the desire to,
>somehow, create a world that would have the same level of impact as
>Middle-Earth – something that would have depth and solidity so that when
>a reader kicked it, they'd say "wow, that feels almost real."
>
> I realized, after some attempts, that I would never achieve that by
>trying to duplicate Tolkien's efforts; while I did invent some languages
>of my own, they were and are pale, pale imitations of what he was
>capable of doing, mostly existing for symbolic/flavor purposes. Instead,
>I had to focus on what mattered to me – making a world that *worked*.
>
> Zarathan isn't built on a deep linguistic base or from someone's
>career-deep knowledge of real-world myth and legend, but from my desire
>to construct a world that makes sense to me, while still being magical
>and strange. The world, therefore, won't feel like Middle-Earth in
>detail… yet I hope that, for some people at least, the sensation of
>something huge, something as big as the world itself, will cause the
>same little chill down their spines as I got from reading Lord of the Rings.

You have to somehow find and keep alive that childlike feeling that,
at any moment, Mom and Dad might walk in on you and pick up all your
toys.

> If I can achieve that, even for a moment… then I've learned at least
>some of the lessons that Professor Tolkien was trying to teach.

I didn't realize he was giving writing lessons!

Well, except insofar as any great writer does, incidentally.

A lot of Tolkien's style is conciously classic, mythopoeic. That
doesn't necessarily make it easy, but there is a mass of examples.
I've picked up stuff by David Brin time and again meaning to try to
figure out his style guidelines - and it's like I just can't see them
and get sucked back into the story instead. You (well, I) have to
approach it in a very cold-blooded way to make any progress at all,
and that still doesn't mean I can duplicate it!

J.

[Don Bruder]

In article <mc0lpe$kul$3...@dont-email.me>,

When we first encounter it in The Hobbit (shortly after Smaug heads off
to his date with Bard the Bowman, but before the expedition from
Laketown shows up at the front gate to demand recompense for the mess
the company caused to the town by stirring up the dragon) it's made very
clear that cram is a substance not too much different than what would be
called hardtack here in "real Earth".

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 2/17/2015 4:17 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> And it was the world that captured me. The characters of Lord of
> the Rings are not terribly detailed as characters; while they have
> enough quirks to make them distinct, they are for the most part
> archetypes which Tolkien derived from his deep and broad knowledge of
> folktales, myth, and legend. His characters are often powerful images
> because of this, but at the same time they often leave considerable
> questions open about what they're like as people outside of the
> requirements of the quest.
>

Something like that happens in real life, the "Great Man" theory of
history (sorta). Someone in _this_ place at _this_ time in _these_
circumstances has to become something more than themselves in order to
do what needs to be done. And it doesn't take long for mythology to
build upon that, just look at the mythology around the American Founding
Fathers or The Greatest Generation fighting WWII. That (relatively)
short period of great intensity overwhelms everything else that happens
in their life.

This has its drawbacks, of course, and I think its worth noting that
Tolkien even touched upon that in a way with the Ringbearers having to
leave Middle-Earth. Even Samwise who carried it for maybe a single day.
(Now that I've typed that I'm reminded of a bit from a show I watched
about air combat. A historian was talking about an interview he had
with a WWI fighter pilot after 2000. The veteran was talking about his
nightmares. The historian asked him when his last one was and the
answer was "Last night.")

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-02-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Pratchett's dwarfs think of it to take their mind
> off food. I think it's also considered a ranged
> weapon of the throwing kind. (_Krull_ is on TV
> this week.)

_AND_ a melee weapon surpassingly useful, if you have the required
proficiency.

> Arms limitation treaties might have
> been mentioned. And you see it in military
> museums. But probably not in the cafe.

No no - it's available in dwarf restaurants, that's made clear a few times
in the books. The one(s) in the museums are FAMOUS dwarf breads. Militarily.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 00:54:23 UTC, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:17:37 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:mc0llq$kul$2...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > On 2/17/15 3:39 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> >> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> >> in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> There may be no other modern work which has so
> >>> completely defined and then overshadowed a genre as
> >>> The Lord of the Rings.
>
> >> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.
>
> > There's a reason I tend to allow myself weasel words like
> > "may".
>
> And 'tend to'? <g> Likewise.

Also "modern"! And maybe "work" since it wasn't just
one Sherlock Holmes story that made him a hit.
And there /are/ other literary detectives.

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:18:07 AM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-02-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Pratchett's dwarfs think of it to take their mind
> > off food. I think it's also considered a ranged
> > weapon of the throwing kind. (_Krull_ is on TV
> > this week.)
>
> _AND_ a melee weapon surpassingly useful, if you have the required
> proficiency.
>
> > Arms limitation treaties might have
> > been mentioned. And you see it in military
> > museums. But probably not in the cafe.
>
> No no - it's available in dwarf restaurants, that's made clear a few times
> in the books. The one(s) in the museums are FAMOUS dwarf breads. Militarily.

Note that here in RL, museums do display hardtack, ship's biscuit, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardtack

I always thought of lembas as a sort of cross between manna and shortbread.
What Peter Jackson put on the screen matched my mental image of it exactly.

Re: Hobbit and LoTR reading order.

I skipped The Hobbit when I found it in the children's room of my hometown
library, in the science fiction section. I thought it had a serious case
of Fairy Tale Cooties. I was intently reading Heinlein, Asimov, Norton -
anything with a rocketship sticker on the spine.

When I saw a film clip of Leonard Nimoy performing the "Ballad of Bilbo
Baggins" on TV....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Bilbo_Baggins

... (yes, I watched "Malibu U") the name stuck with me. So, when I was
about 14, and a friend recommended LoTR with me, I was surprised to
recognize the name. Having consumed the trilogy, I went back and
read it prologue. I've reread LoTR several times, but have never
bothered to revisit The Hobbit, not have I seen the three (3!!!!) films.
I'll get around to seeing those someday, but what padding Jackson
must have done, there.

Kevin R

[Richard Hershberger]

> > Certainly it was the Appendices - with their notes on language, on

> >unique alphabets which were not mere substitution ciphers of the
> >standard alphabet, fragments of legends and events thousands of years in

> >the past - that gave me the feeling of awesome spans of time and depths

> >of reality that infused Middle-Earth. I could see the immense work
> >devoted to that universe, and it was (and is) one of the few things that
> >left me feeling humbled when I contemplated what he had done, and how
> >much work had gone into that construction.
> >
> > The work, of course, would be pointless if the story it supported
> >didn't work, but work it does. For some, the language is overwrought,
> >ponderous, and the story takes far too long to get moving;
>
> Oh it did, but then it does get moving, and Tolkien just never took
> the time to go back and edit the first part down in size.
>
> > but to me,
> >the stage-setting of the Birthday Party, of the hints of danger
> >interspersed with the protagonist Frodo just mostly going on with his
> >life, are necessary parts of what comes after. We couldn't empathize so
> >much with Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin and their concern for their
> >homeland the Shire if we had not seen the Shire, and recognized how

> >precious that quiet, semi-hidden land is - how mundane, yet

> >extraordinary, just as are its inhabitants, the diminutive Hobbits.

Two of the usual criticisms of LotR are the pacing and the prose style. I think both are misguided, largely because of the misguided expectation of modern conventions. Yes, the pacing does not fit these modern conventions. This is itself neither good nor bad. Read older literature and LotR's pacing does not stand out. The expectation with respect to prose style is even more misguided. The thing about contemporary demotic prose style is that it ages rapidly and poorly. Read a popular novel from 1950 and its age is immediately obvious. A good novel may work despite this, but only in the hands of a very few writers is the prose style an asset in such works. Had LotR been written in contemporary prose style, it would be dated today. (Compare with Doc Smith, mention elsewhere in the OP.) By writing in a self-consciously archaic style, Tolkein manages to make the style timeless. This is hard to pull off. In the hands of a lesser writer you end up with dreadful Ye Olde Englishe. I think we tend to disparage intentionally archaic style in part because so few writers can do it well.

> >
> > Tolkien's vision pretty much defined all the key players in epic sagas

> >- the Old Wise Wizard, the Lost King, the Dark Lord, the small yet

> >important little persons, modern views of Dwarves, the noble Elves, etc.

> >- and yet it is interesting to note that many of the later

> >interpretations of those roles, though clearly inspired by Tolkien's,
> >almost invert them in practice.
>
> Tolkien is somewhat generous in LOTR, some of his backstory is not so
> pretty.
>
> > Gandalf is called a wizard and is, in fact, a being of great power, yet
> >we almost never see him using that power.
>
> It may be appropriate to look at Tolkien's buddy C.S. Lewis for more
> perspectives on that. "It never was very proper", Ransom tells
> Merlin, of the practice of magic. Of course this is very convenient
> for real or imaginary magicians, they can hint at huge powers they
> dare not call upon except at greatest need.
>
> > There are literally only a
> >handful of times in Lord of the Rings where he does anything magically
> >impressive. This contrasts with many other works, in which the defining
> >trait of a wizard/mage is that he throws around magic. D&D took this to
> >the extreme; low-level wizards are so fragile that if they didn't have
> >magic they'd be insane to step outdoors, while higher-level wizards can
> >level towns in a fit of pique.
>
> Very wise rhetorically and analytically, or else the details of the
> magic overwhelm any conventional details and logic of the story.
>
> > Similarly, Aragorn is the Lost King, a descendant of an ancient line
> >destined to inherit the greatest mortal kingdom on the planet. Yet,
> >unlike many of his later parallels, his greatest fame and skill is not

> >being a great warrior - although he is one - but a great healer. It is

> >in fact this characteristic that is considered one of the signs that he
> >is, in fact, the destined King.
>
> He is also patient and brave, and as with Siddartha, those may be his
> greatest attributes. It's also what Peter Jackson completely raped in
> his movie adaptation. Aragorn is the instrument of destiny, which is
> as likely to destroy him in ignominious failure as it is to promote
> him. Better to slack off and smoke pipe weed and just let stuff
> happen, maybe, but no, he stays in the game - and wins the princess.

Well, it's one of the things wrong with the Peter Jackson movies. I recently re-read LotR for the first time in perhaps a decade or two, and also re-watched the first of the movies. What struck me is that what makes the book good and what makes the movie good (to the extent that it is) are pretty much disjoint sets. Yes, part of this is because of the different media, but not all. I did not come away with the sense that Jackson "gets" Tolkien in any but a superficial way.

> >superiority - the willingness to not kill when possible, to show mercy,

> >and to allow for a chance of redemption, even when it seems impossible.
>
> Victory is due to the little people playing their roles in a cosmic
> game so large they can barely see its parameters.
>
> > To an extent, of course, it's also a highly religious story. In the
> >end, victory isn't due to any of the Hobbits' actions; it's due to
> >Smeagol/Gollum grabbing the Ring and falling off the edge, an event
> >which is very nearly said to be due to "providence", to in effect God
> >making sure things worked out that way. Gandalf discusses this with

> >Frodo - that he was meant to have the Ring, that Smeagol might still

> >have a part to play, and so on, all words that imply the need for Faith
> >and the existence of some sort of Grand Plan. The origin of Middle-Earth
> >itself, told in The Silmarillion, has very strongly Christian aspects.
>
> That's half of being a wizard, just knowing the game that is afoot.
>
> > The Lord of the Rings influenced me most strongly in the desire to,
> >somehow, create a world that would have the same level of impact as

> >Middle-Earth - something that would have depth and solidity so that when

> >a reader kicked it, they'd say "wow, that feels almost real."
> >
> > I realized, after some attempts, that I would never achieve that by
> >trying to duplicate Tolkien's efforts; while I did invent some languages
> >of my own, they were and are pale, pale imitations of what he was
> >capable of doing, mostly existing for symbolic/flavor purposes. Instead,

> >I had to focus on what mattered to me - making a world that *worked*.

> >
> > Zarathan isn't built on a deep linguistic base or from someone's
> >career-deep knowledge of real-world myth and legend, but from my desire
> >to construct a world that makes sense to me, while still being magical
> >and strange. The world, therefore, won't feel like Middle-Earth in

> >detail... yet I hope that, for some people at least, the sensation of

> >something huge, something as big as the world itself, will cause the
> >same little chill down their spines as I got from reading Lord of the Rings.
>
> You have to somehow find and keep alive that childlike feeling that,
> at any moment, Mom and Dad might walk in on you and pick up all your
> toys.
>

> > If I can achieve that, even for a moment... then I've learned at least

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-02-18, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 00:54:23 UTC, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>> > On 2/17/15 3:39 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> >> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.
>>
>> > There's a reason I tend to allow myself weasel words like "may".
>>
>> And 'tend to'? <g> Likewise.
>
> Also "modern"! And maybe "work" since it wasn't just
> one Sherlock Holmes story that made him a hit.
> And there /are/ other literary detectives.

... NOW there are.

Well, okay, Poe's stuff. And I'm quite sure a raft of imitators sprang up
nearly immediately that are now long-forgotten except perhaps by Project
Gutenberg, much as happened to Magic the Gathering in the first couple years
it was in existence. (Longer-lasting imitators, inspired-bys, homages,
parodies, alternate-takes, etc. continue to this day, of course. But pretty
much ALL of them owe a HUGE debt to Doyle.)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 17:59:14 UTC, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-02-18, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 00:54:23 UTC, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> >> > On 2/17/15 3:39 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >> >> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.
> >>
> >> > There's a reason I tend to allow myself weasel words like "may".
> >>
> >> And 'tend to'? <g> Likewise.
> >
> > Also "modern"! And maybe "work" since it wasn't just
> > one Sherlock Holmes story that made him a hit.
> > And there /are/ other literary detectives.
>
> ... NOW there are.
>
> Well, okay, Poe's stuff. And I'm quite sure a raft of imitators sprang up
> nearly immediately that are now long-forgotten except perhaps by Project
> Gutenberg, much as happened to Magic the Gathering in the first couple years
> it was in existence. (Longer-lasting imitators, inspired-bys, homages,
> parodies, alternate-takes, etc. continue to this day, of course. But pretty
> much ALL of them owe a HUGE debt to Doyle.)

Does _The Moonstone_ - with a police officer - come
before, during, or after the Holmes era?

And, there's _Lady Audley's Secret Policeman_. :-)

[JRStern]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:55:07 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>This has its drawbacks, of course, and I think its worth noting that
>Tolkien even touched upon that in a way with the Ringbearers having to
>leave Middle-Earth. Even Samwise who carried it for maybe a single day.

Interesting analogy.

J.

[JRStern]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), Richard Hershberger
<rrh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> He is also patient and brave, and as with Siddartha, those may be his
>> greatest attributes. It's also what Peter Jackson completely raped in
>> his movie adaptation. Aragorn is the instrument of destiny, which is
>> as likely to destroy him in ignominious failure as it is to promote
>> him. Better to slack off and smoke pipe weed and just let stuff
>> happen, maybe, but no, he stays in the game - and wins the princess.
>
>Well, it's one of the things wrong with the Peter Jackson movies. I recently re-read LotR for the first time in perhaps a decade or two, and also re-watched the first of the movies. What struck me is that what makes the book good and what makes the movie good (to the extent that it is) are pretty much disjoint sets. Yes, part of this is because of the different media, but not all. I did not come away with the sense that Jackson "gets" Tolkien in any but a superficial way.

If you watch the annotated disks with directors and other comments it
seems Jackson got some of it, and was talked into more of it,
fortunately, seeing a giant Sauron out there on the field smashing
away at Aragorn wasn't going to help, even the bits we saw in Elrond's
flashbacks were bad enough, I never envisioned Sauron as gigantic or
even that great a warrior, after all he lost to mere Elves and Men.
No doubt Jackson was drawing on the Silmarillion but you quote
secondary and tertiary stories at your peril.

Jackson might have written Aragorn as a modern slacker specifically to
appeal to more modern cinema audiences, but then he could have had him
wearing Nikes and an iPod, too.

J.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:43ffd4d6-a13a-42f2...@googlegroups.com:

> Well, it's one of the things wrong with the Peter Jackson
> movies. I recently re-read LotR for the first time in perhaps a
> decade or two, and also re-watched the first of the movies.
> What struck me is that what makes the book good and what makes
> the movie good (to the extent that it is) are pretty much
> disjoint sets. Yes, part of this is because of the different
> media, but not all. I did not come away with the sense that
> Jackson "gets" Tolkien in any but a superficial way.
>

They're really different stories. The movies are the story of the
war, the books are the story of the Hobbits. The most stark
difference is cutting the Scouring of the Shire from the movies,
which is the whole point of the books.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:08:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote
in<news:74e2c65e-b6eb-486c...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 17:59:14 UTC, David
> DeLaney wrote:

[...]

> Does _The Moonstone_ - with a police officer - come
> before, during, or after the Holmes era?

It precedes Holmes by a little over 20 years. However, it
was Poe’s Dupin and Gaboriau’s Lecoq whose influence Conan
Doyle explicitly acknowledged: ‘‘Gaboriau had rather
attracted me by the neat dovetailing of his plots, and
Poe’s masterful detective, M. Dupin, had from boyhood been
one of my heroes. But could I bring an addition of my
own?’

> And, there's _Lady Audley's Secret Policeman_. :-)

[David Johnston]

I see no way in which the Aragorn of the movies was a modern slacker.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Yeah. I've heard the multiple whines about the Jackson movies, and some
of them have merit. Denethor's characterization, and his son Faramir's
(though Boromir was pretty much dead on. DEAD on! HA!) The weird sh*t
with "Arwen, spirit of Middle Earth". Even the cutting of the Scouring,
although that and Tom Bombadil were pretty much no-brainers to cut from
the movies, unless you were going for four movies with the fourth being
"Lord of the Rings: the Letdown".

The whinging about Aragorn? No. All they did was make explicit stuff
that was pretty much covered over with the phrasing that Tolkien used.

(similar to some of the complaints about Downey's Sherlock Holmes:
Holmes actually WAS quite the Action Hero, and some of the feats shown
were drawn straight out of the canon. I re-read "The Sign of Four"
recently and realized that if I filmed the end sequence to modern
sensibilities, what I had was a high-speed chase of boats down a crowded
(relatively speaking) river, complete with gunfire, poisoned blowgun
darts, and a final beaching confrontation.)

[J. Clarke]

In article <22bb4661-1bd0-4799...@googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com says...

That song got a good bit of airtime and a friend of mine had the record,
and yet until just now I never realized that it was Leonard Nimoy
singing it.

[Dimensional Traveler]

One's brain can erase certain memories to save one's sanity. :D

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-02-19, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> (similar to some of the complaints about Downey's Sherlock Holmes:
> Holmes actually WAS quite the Action Hero, and some of the feats shown
> were drawn straight out of the canon. I re-read "The Sign of Four"
> recently and realized that if I filmed the end sequence to modern
> sensibilities, what I had was a high-speed chase of boats down a crowded
> (relatively speaking) river, complete with gunfire, poisoned blowgun
> darts, and a final beaching confrontation.)

At least one of the people in the _Two Hundred and Twenty-One Baker Streets_
recent anthology also noted this, that they were all 'meh' about previous
Holmes/Watson movies, but Downey & Law (mmmm, Law) were actually truer to the
canon than most previous movies had been.

_My_ "you had me at FOO" thing was that effect where you saw him going "spot
this, spot that, spot those" in flashes of circular attention, giving regular
people some idea of what it might be LIKE to be on the _inside_ of his head
while he was thinking. As others have noted, it's hard to write characters more
intelligent than you, and it's probably equally hard for an actor to portray
them in ways which get across the experience of _being_ one, usually.

Dave, the Christmas Mysteries anthology I'm reading has some Holmes-by-others
stories as well, along with The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle from canon

[Don Bruder]

In article <MPG.2f4f0def1...@news.eternal-september.org>,

<heheh> The concept that Leonard/Spock can sing is one that sneaks up on
you - then clubs you over the head with a large, heavy implement - An
action which many people seem to consider an act of mercy. (although
after having heard his pal Shatner attempt to make sounds that were
intended to be called singing, I'd have to rate Nimoy as one of the
better singers on the planet...)

Having said that...

I first "met" The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins at a very young age - 4? 5? My
mother had the album "Two Sides of Leonard Nimoy", and was fond of
Leonard's version of "If I Was a Carpenter". "Bilbo" and a tune from the
"Spock" side, titled "Highly Illogical" were two of my childhood
favorites. It was probably another 5-6 years before I made Bilbo's
acquaintance in book form. When I did, I found out I actually liked the
song even better after realizing the connection. Besides being fun, the
tune is actually a surprisingly good 2 minute distillation of an 11 hour
audiobook. Talk about a "Reader's Digest" version :)

[JRStern]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:09:44 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Then you missed the obvious.

The question is there even in Tolkien but he answers it severally, all
omitted from the Jackson version and replaced by Elrond's snarky
sneer, theme if not the words misppropriated from another discussion,
"Men are weak". The whole "Strider" speech is omitted, and we're left
in the movie with an image of an Aragorn who looks like a vagrant, and
he seems to be getting dragged into things in spite of himself. This
could hardly be more opposite to the themes Tolkien used to write it.

J.

[Richard Hershberger]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 2:41:04 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:43ffd4d6-a13a-42f2...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Well, it's one of the things wrong with the Peter Jackson
> > movies. I recently re-read LotR for the first time in perhaps a
> > decade or two, and also re-watched the first of the movies.
> > What struck me is that what makes the book good and what makes
> > the movie good (to the extent that it is) are pretty much
> > disjoint sets. Yes, part of this is because of the different
> > media, but not all. I did not come away with the sense that
> > Jackson "gets" Tolkien in any but a superficial way.
> >
> They're really different stories. The movies are the story of the
> war, the books are the story of the Hobbits. The most stark
> difference is cutting the Scouring of the Shire from the movies,
> which is the whole point of the books.

"Whole point" seems overstated, but it certainly ties in with a major theme: even when the good guys win, things are never as they were before. This theme pervades The Silmarillion as well. The Scouring of the Shire is a concrete manifestation of this.

That being said, there are other important themes: the importance of the seemingly insignificant in great affairs, the corrupting influence of power, etc.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>

> The whinging about Aragorn? No. All they did was make explicit stuff
> that was pretty much covered over with the phrasing that Tolkien used.
>

I'd say that while I wouldn't call it _bad_, I don't particularly like
the movie's portrayal of Aragorn. Of the characters in the fellowship,
his is the least successful or accurate-in-spirit realisation (after
Gimli's, obviously, but I'm not sure that counts as they didn't even
_try_ with Gimli.)

Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.


--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:0d8f4a33-3e53-41a5...@googlegroups.com:

The Scouring is, artistically speaking, the culmination of the
story of the Hobbits growing up, so to speak, and learning to look
out for themselves. That's the postition it holds in the sturcture
of the story, with a minor epilog about the ring bearers getting
their reward for their faithful service. That's how the story is
structured.

(It's not hard to see how Jackson would have disagreed on that. He
doesn't seem the sort to delves in to the deeper meaning of things,
especially when there's CGI to be harvested and turned in to
money.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote in
news:aeCdndRWvPMN0nvJ...@giganews.com:

> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> The whinging about Aragorn? No. All they did was make
>> explicit stuff
>> that was pretty much covered over with the phrasing that
>> Tolkien used.
>>
>
> I'd say that while I wouldn't call it _bad_, I don't
> particularly like the movie's portrayal of Aragorn. Of the
> characters in the fellowship, his is the least successful or
> accurate-in-spirit realisation (after Gimli's, obviously, but
> I'm not sure that counts as they didn't

couldn't

> even _try_ with Gimli.)
>
> Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.
>

Which is apprpriate, since it was an action movie.

[Moriarty]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 7:39:24 AM UTC+11, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

> in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>

> > There may be no other modern work which has so completely
> > defined and then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the
> > Rings.
>

> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.

_Dracula_ too, for some values of "modern".

-Moriarty

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:buix5b5ubn87.d5dmaadijxm1$.d...@40tude.net:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> There may be no other modern work which has so completely
>> defined and then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the
>> Rings.
>
> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.
>

Still the 2nd most recognizable fictional character in the English
language (after Mickey Mouse), with, IIRC, James Bond a close third.

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> couldn't
>

Meh. They still didn't need to turn him into a buffoon, and
they _certainly_ didn't have to turn him into an _unfunny_
buffoon.

>
> Which is apprpriate, since it was an action movie.
>

Sure. Movie Aragorn works in the context of the movies, but
I understand why some people feel he wasn't a very good
translation of the character in the book.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <XnsA4468B34959...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>news:buix5b5ubn87.d5dmaadijxm1$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:17:50 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
>> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>> in<news:mbvbg7$ufa$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There may be no other modern work which has so completely
>>> defined and then overshadowed a genre as The Lord of the
>>> Rings.
>>
>> Sherlock Holmes, perhaps, at least for quite a while.
>>
>Still the 2nd most recognizable fictional character in the English
>language (after Mickey Mouse), with, IIRC, James Bond a close third.
>

Put those three in a cross-over. Pure marketing gold!
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote in

news:XvednQ011Oqe_HvJ...@giganews.com:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> couldn't
>>
>
> Meh. They still didn't need to turn him into a buffoon, and
> they _certainly_ didn't have to turn him into an _unfunny_
> buffoon.

Given that they were already filming when they discovered the actor
was allergic to the makeup, there wasn't much they _could_ do that
wouldn't have offended a lot of fans.

And frankly, nothing that was done to Gimli was as annoying as shield
surfing down the stairs.

>
>>
>> Which is apprpriate, since it was an action movie.
>>
>
> Sure. Movie Aragorn works in the context of the movies, but
> I understand why some people feel he wasn't a very good
> translation of the character in the book.
>

Anybody who expects _any_ movie that is "inspired by the title of a
popular novel" to bear even the remotest resemblance is an idiot.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:ckn6p6...@mid.individual.net:

I suspect it's been done. And likely as slash fiction, to boot. I
expect MIckey was in the middle.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:38:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA4468AD844A...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

I agree with both of you: there are several important
themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
little tale in its own right.)

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:17:39 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
<le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote
in<news:XvednQ011Oqe_HvJ...@giganews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Leif Roar Moldskred

Completely off topic, but every time I see your name, I
want to convert it to <Leifr Hróarson á Moldskriðu>!

[Alan Baker]

I love LOTR and have read it probably a dozen times or more...

...but I disagree that the Scouring of the Shire is "absolutely essential".

Is it a theme that is important? Yes. But truly doing it justice would
have taken at LEAST half an hour on the screen...

...so how do you fit it in?

[Michael Ikeda]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:kio7jrdqj9m0
$.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:

>
> I agree with both of you: there are several important
> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
> little tale in its own right.)

In the books, perhaps.

In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS to be
made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take place after
the climax of the movie. Keeping the Scouring in will please a few
fanatical purists. It loses everyone who isn't already a fan of the
books (and a lot of the people who are).

[JRStern]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:03:12 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
<le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote:

>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> The whinging about Aragorn? No. All they did was make explicit stuff
>> that was pretty much covered over with the phrasing that Tolkien used.
>>
>
>I'd say that while I wouldn't call it _bad_, I don't particularly like
>the movie's portrayal of Aragorn. Of the characters in the fellowship,
>his is the least successful or accurate-in-spirit realisation (after
>Gimli's, obviously, but I'm not sure that counts as they didn't even
>_try_ with Gimli.)

Overall I was OK with the Gimli rendering, even if they also used him
for various non-canonical jokes. The dwarves in the book were not big
on ceremony, at least not anyone's but their own, so even the joking
is not entirely inappropriate.

>Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.

To be fair, he doesn't spend a lot of time as king in the book,
either. He is showing his various meritorious qualities and
fulfilling a hopeful destiny which might earn his house a restoration
they were too polite to demand otherwise. He doesn't even have his
special sword in the movie until late in the game, and quite frankly
his fighting prowess such as it is is never quite explained in the
movie, either. But I guess he's a little more action hero-y in the
movie, that's as good a way of putting it as any.

J.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:09:37 -0800, Alan Baker
<alang...@telus.net> wrote
in<news:mc5tvv$kti$1...@news.datemas.de> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2015-02-20 00:01:33 +0000, Brian M. Scott said:

[...]

>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>> little tale in its own right.)

> I love LOTR and have read it probably a dozen times or
> more...

> ...but I disagree that the Scouring of the Shire is
> "absolutely essential".

Feel free; you’re wrong, however.

> Is it a theme that is important? Yes. But truly doing it
> justice would have taken at LEAST half an hour on the
> screen...

> ...so how do you fit it in?

Honestly? If you can’t fit it in, you don’t make the
movies. But my opinion on that score is rather beside the
point, since I’m not really very fond of the medium in the
first place.

[Brian M. Scott]

On 20 Feb 2015 00:12:55 GMT, Michael Ikeda
<mmi...@erols.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:kio7jrdqj9m0
> $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:

>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>> little tale in its own right.)

> In the books, perhaps.

I don’t really much care about anything else.

> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely
> HAS to be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that
> long take place after the climax of the movie.

<shrug> The battle may well be the climax of the movies;
it’s far from being the end of the *story*. And if the
battle has to be the film climax, then the story can’t be
filmed.

Frankly, I think that the idea of trying to film LoTR was
fairly ridiculous to begin with.

[...]

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:24:03 -0800, JRStern
<JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote
in<news:i5vcea1in9n1qf4bu...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:03:12 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
> <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote:

[...]

>>Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.

> To be fair, he doesn't spend a lot of time as king in the

> book, either. [...]

In Tolkien’s world he is inherently a king; the fact that
he isn’t crowned and formally recognized as one until very
late in the book is beside the point. I suspect that
Jackson simply doesn’t really get that worldview.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-02-20 00:28:01 +0000, Brian M. Scott said:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:09:37 -0800, Alan Baker
> <alang...@telus.net> wrote
> in<news:mc5tvv$kti$1...@news.datemas.de> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On 2015-02-20 00:01:33 +0000, Brian M. Scott said:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>> little tale in its own right.)
>
>> I love LOTR and have read it probably a dozen times or
>> more...
>
>> ...but I disagree that the Scouring of the Shire is
>> "absolutely essential".
>
> Feel free; you’re wrong, however.

Ah! Cut to the very quick, I am!

>
>> Is it a theme that is important? Yes. But truly doing it
>> justice would have taken at LEAST half an hour on the
>> screen...
>
>> ...so how do you fit it in?
>
> Honestly? If you can’t fit it in, you don’t make the
> movies. But my opinion on that score is rather beside the
> point, since I’m not really very fond of the medium in the
> first place.

Personally, I'd rather have had the movies than not.

If you don't like the medium, feel free not to watch.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Well said.

I love the books. Absolutely flat out love them and have since my
father originally started reading them to me and my brothers when I was
about 9-10.

And I understand that movies are a different medium and require
different choices.

[Alan Baker]

I think in the movie, you see a man who is not entirely at peace with
the fact that--while he knows he is a king by birth--he'll never get to
serve the purpose of his birthright, and so has chosen to serve his
people as best he can.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-02-20 00:49:56 +0000, Brian M. Scott said:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:24:03 -0800, JRStern
> <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote
> in<news:i5vcea1in9n1qf4bu...@4ax.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:03:12 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
>> <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.
>
>> To be fair, he doesn't spend a lot of time as king in the
>> book, either. [...]
>
> In Tolkien’s world he is inherently a king; the fact that
> he isn’t crowned and formally recognized as one until very
> late in the book is beside the point. I suspect that
> Jackson simply doesn’t really get that worldview.

How is that made clear in the books? What makes him "inherently a king"
in them, but not in the movies?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in

news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:kio7jrdqj9m0 $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>>
>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>> little tale in its own right.)
>
> In the books, perhaps.
>
> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS to
> be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take
> place after the climax of the movie.

You are assuming that the Scouring it snot, itself, the climax. (As
the movie was structured, it wasn't. But that's a choice Jackson
made, and it's different than the choice the Tolkein made with te
bhooks.)

> Keeping the Scouring in
> will please a few fanatical purists. It loses everyone who
> isn't already a fan of the books (and a lot of the people who
> are).
>

I agree it didn't belong in the movie. But the movie is a different
story than the books. The books are not an action story.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:otpfhjxxk0tv
$.zey4nv2b...@40tude.net:

> On 20 Feb 2015 00:12:55 GMT, Michael Ikeda
> <mmi...@erols.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:kio7jrdqj9m0
>> $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>> little tale in its own right.)
>
>> In the books, perhaps.
>
> I don’t really much care about anything else.
>
>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely
>> HAS to be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that
>> long take place after the climax of the movie.
>
> <shrug> The battle may well be the climax of the movies;
> it’s far from being the end of the *story*. And if the
> battle has to be the film climax, then the story can’t be
> filmed.
>
> Frankly, I think that the idea of trying to film LoTR was
> fairly ridiculous to begin with.
>

Then why are you arguing about it? Why spend so much time saying
the same thing over and over. Just up "I don't movies and I dislike
the LotR movies" in your .sig and have done with it. Because that's
literally all you have to say.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in

news:vombg8dyxmt3.1l546mewebesf$.d...@40tude.net:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:24:03 -0800, JRStern
> <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote
> in<news:i5vcea1in9n1qf4bu...@4ax.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:03:12 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
>> <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.
>
>> To be fair, he doesn't spend a lot of time as king in the
>> book, either. [...]
>
> In Tolkien’s world he is inherently a king; the fact that
> he isn’t crowned and formally recognized as one until very
> late in the book is beside the point. I suspect that
> Jackson simply doesn’t really get that worldview.
>

Whether he does or not isn't relevant. It's a point that needed to be
changed to make the movie a better (and more profitable) movie.

[Alan Baker]

On 2015-02-20 00:00:39 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy said:

> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:kio7jrdqj9m0 $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>> little tale in its own right.)
>>
>> In the books, perhaps.
>>
>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS to
>> be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take
>> place after the climax of the movie.
>
> You are assuming that the Scouring it snot, itself, the climax. (As
> the movie was structured, it wasn't. But that's a choice Jackson
> made, and it's different than the choice the Tolkein made with te
> bhooks.)

Because books and movies are different.

>
>> Keeping the Scouring in
>> will please a few fanatical purists. It loses everyone who
>> isn't already a fan of the books (and a lot of the people who
>> are).
>>
> I agree it didn't belong in the movie. But the movie is a different
> story than the books. The books are not an action story.

The movies are much more than an action story...

...but they still have to be cut to a reasonable time.

:-)

[Don Bruder]

In article <mc5tvv$kti$1...@news.datemas.de>,

By cutting down the insanely huge amount of time spent on action-figure
elves who somehow surf down the trunks of collapsing oliphants whilst
shooting 3 arrows at a time as if there was any hope of having any of
them hit anything meaningful. Among other things...

I like LotR, don't get me wrong. As a book (or trilogy, if you prefer)
it's a great read. As a movie, it has yet to be made decently, although
I can't deny I liked at least some parts of what Jackson mutilated.

(Personally, I thought that, in terms of being a decent adaptation, the
old Rotoscoped version from the 80s was doing a pretty darn good job.)

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:01:59 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA446AD45497...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:otpfhjxxk0tv
> $.zey4nv2b...@40tude.net:

[...]

>> Frankly, I think that the idea of trying to film LoTR was
>> fairly ridiculous to begin with.

> Then why are you arguing about it? Why spend so much time
> saying the same thing over and over. Just up "I don't
> movies and I dislike the LotR movies" in your .sig and
> have done with it. Because that's literally all you have
> to say.

Not quite, no; between here and rasfc I’ve made quite a few
specific comments over the years. Hell, I’ve even offered
the (minority!) opinion that as far as it went, the Bakshi
did a tolerably decent job of presenting Tolkien’s story.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 2/19/15 4:03 PM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> The whinging about Aragorn? No. All they did was make explicit stuff
>> that was pretty much covered over with the phrasing that Tolkien used.
>>
>
> I'd say that while I wouldn't call it _bad_, I don't particularly like
> the movie's portrayal of Aragorn. Of the characters in the fellowship,
> his is the least successful or accurate-in-spirit realisation (after
> Gimli's, obviously, but I'm not sure that counts as they didn't even
> _try_ with Gimli.)

Gimli was handicapped by the fact that they discovered, after the fact,
that John Rhys-Davies became allergic to the makeup and could only do it
in short spurts.

>
> Movie Aragorn was an action hero, not a king.

(A) Yeah, and how exactly is that different from the book, when he did
things like single-handedly chase away the entire mob of Nazgul with
nothing but a burning torch and badassery?

(B) The two can be very much the same, and in the case of Jackson's, he
is both a healer AND a warrior, which is pretty much what the book had
him be.

>
>


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 2/19/15 7:00 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:kio7jrdqj9m0 $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>> little tale in its own right.)
>>
>> In the books, perhaps.
>>
>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS to
>> be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take
>> place after the climax of the movie.
>
> You are assuming that the Scouring it snot, itself, the climax. (As
> the movie was structured, it wasn't. But that's a choice Jackson
> made, and it's different than the choice the Tolkein made with te
> bhooks.)

It wasn't in the books, either. It may have been the ultimate POINT for
the Hobbit characters, but climax? No, that was long before.

[Moriarty]

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:45:03 PM UTC+11, Brian M. Scott wrote:

<snip>

> Not quite, no; between here and rasfc I've made quite a few
> specific comments over the years. Hell, I've even offered
> the (minority!) opinion that as far as it went, the Bakshi
> did a tolerably decent job of presenting Tolkien's story.

Yep! That's surely a minority opinion.

-Moriarty

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I felt that Bakshi's version clearly TRIED, but Bakshi's love of the
rotoscope, combined with his running out of money, severely damaged the
result. And then Rankin-Bass "finished" it.

[Alan Baker]

Epilogue... ...pretty much classic epilogue material.

[David Johnston]

It was kind of long for a epilogue, but I can't really describe it as
anything else.

[Richard Hershberger]

The point is that the book is not an action story. It is a story with, you know, themes and stuff, and which also includes action. The movie, on the other hand, is an action movie, largely devoid of all those pointy-headed themes and stuff. A surprising number of readers agree: they really like the action parts of the book, but complain about all those other, boring bits. They love the films because they add more action than was in the book, while cutting out all that other stuff.

My reaction is what is the point? If someone wants to make an action film--one that is largely devoid of what makes LotR more than just a potboiler--he can go ahead. But by calling it "The Lord of the Rings" he invites comparison with the books. The reason to call it this, rather than changing all the names, partially filing off the serial numbers, and calling it "The Sword of Shannara," is marketing pure and simple. Fine, but they can't have it both ways, marketing the film as LotR while dismissing comparison to the book.

And for everyone who claims that a book can't be faithfully adapted into a film, Mario Puzo says "Hi!"

Richard R. Hershberger

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-02-20, Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:kio7jrdqj9m0

>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>> little tale in its own right.)
>
> In the books, perhaps.
>
> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS to be
> made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take place after
> the climax of the movie. Keeping the Scouring in will please a few
> fanatical purists. It loses everyone who isn't already a fan of the
> books (and a lot of the people who are).

... and if it eventually gets made as an 'epilogue movie' in its own right?
Not a grand-spectacle movie, not a travelogue-with-scenery movie, but more of
a human-interest semi-chick-flick (yes, I know the percentage of actual females
was scarily low and one of them was Lobelia)?

A percentage of fans would STILL go to see it...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:mc61p4$rqq$1...@news.datemas.de:

> On 2015-02-20 00:00:39 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> said:
>
>> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190:
>>
>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>> news:kio7jrdqj9m0 $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>>> little tale in its own right.)
>>>
>>> In the books, perhaps.
>>>
>>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS
>>> to be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take
>>> place after the climax of the movie.
>>
>> You are assuming that the Scouring it snot, itself, the climax.
>> (As the movie was structured, it wasn't. But that's a choice
>> Jackson made, and it's different than the choice the Tolkein
>> made with te bhooks.)
>
> Because books and movies are different.

No shit.

>
>>
>>> Keeping the Scouring in
>>> will please a few fanatical purists. It loses everyone who
>>> isn't already a fan of the books (and a lot of the people who
>>> are).
>>>
>> I agree it didn't belong in the movie. But the movie is a
>> different story than the books. The books are not an action
>> story.
>
> The movies are much more than an action story...

Decent movies are. But they *are* action movies.

>
> ...but they still have to be cut to a reasonable time.
>

For some definitions of "reasonable."

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:54tswt161lrm
$.5msarl31...@40tude.net:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:01:59 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA446AD45497...@69.16.179.42> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:otpfhjxxk0tv
>> $.zey4nv2b...@40tude.net:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Frankly, I think that the idea of trying to film LoTR was
>>> fairly ridiculous to begin with.
>
>> Then why are you arguing about it? Why spend so much time
>> saying the same thing over and over. Just up "I don't
>> movies and I dislike the LotR movies" in your .sig and
>> have done with it. Because that's literally all you have
>> to say.
>
> Not quite, no; between here and rasfc I’ve made quite a few
> specific comments over the years.

No, you've made the same comment over and over. And will continue to
do so, while pretending it doesn't matter to you.

> Hell, I’ve even offered
> the (minority!) opinion that as far as it went, the Bakshi
> did a tolerably decent job of presenting Tolkien’s story.
>

"Where there's a whip, there's a way"? No, that was the Rankin Bass
one.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:mc683j$ttj$4...@dont-email.me:

Not structurally.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:mc6b2u$b9k$1...@news.datemas.de:

No, that's the ring bearers heading off to Club Med.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:BqidnedBbthMxnrJ...@earthlink.com:

> On 2015-02-20, Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote:
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:kio7jrdqj9m0
>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>> little tale in its own right.)
>>
>> In the books, perhaps.
>>
>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS
>> to be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take
>> place after the climax of the movie. Keeping the Scouring in
>> will please a few fanatical purists. It loses everyone who
>> isn't already a fan of the books (and a lot of the people who
>> are).
>
> ... and if it eventually gets made as an 'epilogue movie' in its
> own right? Not a grand-spectacle movie, not a
> travelogue-with-scenery movie, but more of a human-interest
> semi-chick-flick (yes, I know the percentage of actual females
> was scarily low and one of them was Lobelia)?
>
> A percentage of fans would STILL go to see it...
>

It worked for the third Hobbit movie (the stretching the story out
pointlessly idea, not the chick flick idea. Though, now that I think
about it, there was the elf/dward porn bit.)

[Alan Baker]

No. That is the finale of the epilogue.

:-)

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> Completely off topic, but every time I see your name, I
> want to convert it to <Leifr Hróarson á Moldskriðu>!
>
> Brian

*g* By all means do! (But I must admit I don't know enough
about Norse grammar to say if it's correct.)

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given that they were already filming when they discovered the actor
> was allergic to the makeup, there wasn't much they _could_ do that
> wouldn't have offended a lot of fans.
>

Fair point.

> And frankly, nothing that was done to Gimli was as annoying as shield
> surfing down the stairs.
>

I thought the Oliphant surfing was worse myself, but I see your point.

> Anybody who expects _any_ movie that is "inspired by the title of a
> popular novel" to bear even the remotest resemblance is an idiot.
>

Oh, I learnt _that_ lesson from "Starship Troopers." Overall, I think
the Jackson movies were a very good adaption of the book; almost as
good as I'd hoped and better by far than what I had expected.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[David Johnston]

On 2/20/2015 8:37 AM, Richard Hershberger wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 7:12:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Ikeda
> wrote:
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:kio7jrdqj9m0
>> $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important themes, but
>>> the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of the overall
>>> structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying little tale in its
>>> own right.)
>>
>> In the books, perhaps.
>>
>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS to
>> be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take place
>> after the climax of the movie. Keeping the Scouring in will please
>> a few fanatical purists. It loses everyone who isn't already a fan
>> of the books (and a lot of the people who are).
>
> The point is that the book is not an action story. It is a story
> with, you know, themes and stuff, and which also includes action.
> The movie, on the other hand, is an action movie, largely devoid of
> all those pointy-headed themes and stuff. A surprising number of
> readers agree: they really like the action parts of the book, but
> complain about all those other, boring bits. They love the films
> because they add more action than was in the book, while cutting out
> all that other stuff.
>
> My reaction is what is the point?

Made a pretty good movie.

If someone wants to make an action
> film--one that is largely devoid of what makes LotR more than just a
> potboiler--he can go ahead. But by calling it "The Lord of the
> Rings" he invites comparison with the books. The reason to call it
> this, rather than changing all the names, partially filing off the
> serial numbers, and calling it "The Sword of Shannara," is marketing
> pure and simple. Fine, but they can't have it both ways, marketing
> the film as LotR while dismissing comparison to the book.

Now hold on there. Comparison is one thing. Just complaining that
changes were made even when not making them would have made for a worse
movie is another. I freely compare the movie's Denethor to the book's
Denethor and say the movie screwed him up massively. But the Scouring
of the Shire would have made too long an addition to a movie that was
already way long.

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
> To be fair, he doesn't spend a lot of time as king in the book,

> either. He is showing his various meritorious qualities and
> fulfilling a hopeful destiny which might earn his house a restoration
> they were too polite to demand otherwise. He doesn't even have his
> special sword in the movie until late in the game, and quite frankly
> his fighting prowess such as it is is never quite explained in the
> movie, either. But I guess he's a little more action hero-y in the
> movie, that's as good a way of putting it as any.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at. Aragorn in the book has a
certain ... gravitas about him. There's a strength of character to him,
an iron core. He is someone you can see men follow, someone you can
see not just lead, but _rule_.

I don't think Viggo Mortensen's portrayal had that. His Aragorn was
gruffly competent hero, tough, brave, skilled and strong of will,
a man of action, but he wasn't someone men would gravitate to. He didn't
have the air of command about him, the firmness of purpose that Aragorn
in the book had.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in

news:mc7rea$j0c$1...@news.datemas.de:

Since you couldn't even type that with a straight face, I rest my
case.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote in
news:ud2dnSGrqdk54nrJ...@giganews.com:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given that they were already filming when they discovered the
>> actor was allergic to the makeup, there wasn't much they
>> _could_ do that wouldn't have offended a lot of fans.
>>
>
> Fair point.
>
>> And frankly, nothing that was done to Gimli was as annoying as
>> shield surfing down the stairs.
>>
>
> I thought the Oliphant surfing was worse myself, but I see your
> point.

And similar idiocy in the last Hobbit movie.

Most annoying thing in the LotR movies, though, was the radioactive
scrubbing bubbles. While a verbal description of the scene would
very closely match the passage in the book, it just lookd *stupid*.

>
>> Anybody who expects _any_ movie that is "inspired by the title
>> of a popular novel" to bear even the remotest resemblance is an
>> idiot.
>>
>
> Oh, I learnt _that_ lesson from "Starship Troopers."

Oddly, the same people (including Verhoeven directing) did a(n
animated) miniseries that was very true to the book, and of better
than average quality overall.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190198/

> Overall, I
> think the Jackson movies were a very good adaption of the book;
> almost as good as I'd hoped and better by far than what I had
> expected.
>

I think of them more as a parallel story about the same people and
events. Sort of like what McCaffrey did with Pern for a while.

I like the movies, mind you, and have no regrests for the time or
money I spent on them. But they're just not the same story.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:mc7vk8$991$1...@dont-email.me:

> But the Scouring of the Shire would have made too
> long an addition to a movie that was already way long.
>

Had they not spent more time than the Scouring would have taken on
stuff that was added in, often pulled out of Jackson's ass with *no*
basis in the books, I might agree.

[Will in New Haven]

Maybe he didn't. However, I couldn't tell because, according to at least one authority figure in my life, I'm immune to that sort of stuff. All anyone really should have done with kings is kill them.

--
Will in New Haven

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:49:13 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:mc6aqh$ct4$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2/19/15 10:11 PM, Moriarty wrote:

>> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:45:03 PM UTC+11, Brian
>> M. Scott wrote:

>> <snip>

>>> Not quite, no; between here and rasfc I've made quite a few
>>> specific comments over the years. Hell, I've even offered
>>> the (minority!) opinion that as far as it went, the Bakshi
>>> did a tolerably decent job of presenting Tolkien's story.

>> Yep! That's surely a minority opinion.

> I felt that Bakshi's version clearly TRIED, but Bakshi's
> love of the rotoscope, combined with his running out of
> money, severely damaged the result. And then Rankin-Bass
> "finished" it.

Not a fan of the rotoscope, no. But at least he was trying
to tell Tolkien’s story, within the limits of the medium
available to him.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:27:15 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA44774851BA...@69.16.179.42> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote
> in news:ud2dnSGrqdk54nrJ...@giganews.com:

[...]

>> Overall, I think the Jackson movies were a very good
>> adaption of the book; almost as good as I'd hoped and
>> better by far than what I had expected.

> I think of them more as a parallel story about the same
> people and events.

Pretty much the same events, but not really the same
people.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:33:44 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
<le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote
in<news:6c2dnT7dVeeV43rJ...@giganews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> Completely off topic, but every time I see your name, I
>> want to convert it to <Leifr Hróarson á Moldskriðu>!

> *g* By all means do! (But I must admit I don't know enough
> about Norse grammar to say if it's correct.)

It is, apart from an inadvertent spelling error: it should
be <Hróarsson>. (I still make heavy use of a dictionary,
but I’ve been a member of a group that gets together once a
month to read the sagas in the original language for over
25 years.)

[Alan Baker]

"How did you get to be king? I didn't vote for you."

[Cryptoengineer]

Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:51d3a398-28f2-4d0b...@googlegroups.com:

When I read the books, the scene in the Halls of Healing where
Aragorn invokes his Magickal Royal Powers to turn kingsfoil into
a cure-all really threw me.

All the other impossible stuff seemed kind of standard, but all
of a sudden it turned out that he wasn't really a human.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1ic61yski1cpr.1...@40tude.net:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:27:15 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA44774851BA...@69.16.179.42> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@huldreskog.localdomain> wrote
>> in news:ud2dnSGrqdk54nrJ...@giganews.com:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Overall, I think the Jackson movies were a very good
>>> adaption of the book; almost as good as I'd hoped and
>>> better by far than what I had expected.
>
>> I think of them more as a parallel story about the same
>> people and events.
>
> Pretty much the same events, but not really the same
> people.
>

Certainly an arguable point, for at least some characters. But as
close as you can get, given the different medium. Again, only an
idiot would expect otherwise.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in

news:17rqoo60cz69l.1...@40tude.net:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:49:13 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:mc6aqh$ct4$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On 2/19/15 10:11 PM, Moriarty wrote:
>
>>> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:45:03 PM UTC+11, Brian
>>> M. Scott wrote:
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>> Not quite, no; between here and rasfc I've made quite a few
>>>> specific comments over the years. Hell, I've even offered
>>>> the (minority!) opinion that as far as it went, the Bakshi
>>>> did a tolerably decent job of presenting Tolkien's story.
>
>>> Yep! That's surely a minority opinion.
>
>> I felt that Bakshi's version clearly TRIED, but Bakshi's
>> love of the rotoscope, combined with his running out of
>> money, severely damaged the result. And then Rankin-Bass
>> "finished" it.
>
> Not a fan of the rotoscope, no. But at least he was trying
> to tell Tolkien’s story, within the limits of the medium
> available to him.
>

That's part of the reason it flopped financially.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:12:08 -0600, Cryptoengineer
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA4479A95F9...@216.166.97.131> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:51d3a398-28f2-4d0b...@googlegroups.com:

>> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-5, Leif
>> Roar Moldskred wrote:

[...]

>>> That wasn't quite what I was getting at. Aragorn in the
>>> book has a certain ... gravitas about him. There's a
>>> strength of character to him, an iron core. He is
>>> someone you can see men follow, someone you can see
>>> not just lead, but _rule_.

>>> I don't think Viggo Mortensen's portrayal had that. His
>>> Aragorn was gruffly competent hero, tough, brave,
>>> skilled and strong of will, a man of action, but he
>>> wasn't someone men would gravitate to. He didn't have
>>> the air of command about him, the firmness of purpose
>>> that Aragorn in the book had.

>> Maybe he didn't. However, I couldn't tell because,
>> according to at least one authority figure in my life,
>> I'm immune to that sort of stuff. All anyone really
>> should have done with kings is kill them.

I seem to be considerably less susceptible than most, but
I’ve actually known two people, one male and one female,
who really did have that kind of aura. I could see it in
operation, and I could feel it just enough to be able to
see why people were affected by it.

> When I read the books, the scene in the Halls of Healing
> where Aragorn invokes his Magickal Royal Powers to turn
> kingsfoil into a cure-all really threw me.

> All the other impossible stuff seemed kind of standard,
> but all of a sudden it turned out that he wasn't really
> a human.

Of course he was; but he was a human *king*. The
association of healing with kingship is old and
bog-standard.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 2/20/15 10:38 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:mc683j$ttj$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2/19/15 7:00 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA446C375585BD...@216.151.153.190:
>>>
>>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>>> news:kio7jrdqj9m0 $.1izqlia5e5y4q$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with both of you: there are several important
>>>>> themes, but the Scouring is an absolutely essential part of
>>>>> the overall structure. (Not to mention a very satisfying
>>>>> little tale in its own right.)
>>>>
>>>> In the books, perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> In the movies the Scouring is the one cut that absolutely HAS
>>>> to be made. You simply can NOT have a sequence that long take
>>>> place after the climax of the movie.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that the Scouring it snot, itself, the climax.
>>> (As the movie was structured, it wasn't. But that's a choice
>>> Jackson made, and it's different than the choice the Tolkein
>>> made with te bhooks.)
>>
>> It wasn't in the books, either. It may have been the
>> ultimate POINT for
>> the Hobbit characters, but climax? No, that was long before.
>>
> Not structurally.
>

Sure the way I see it structurally. The climax comes at the destruction
of the Ring and end of the big war, and the rest is just wrap up.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

news:mc8jkf$ulh$3...@dont-email.me:

As has been noted, it's too long for a proper epilogue, and there's
an actual epilogue in the departure of the ring beaers.

(I'm suddently reminded of Bujold's essays on the collaborative
nature of reading. We clealry didn't read the same books.)

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:31:53 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:mc8jkf$ulh$3...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2/20/15 10:38 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> wrote:

>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
>> wrote in news:mc683j$ttj$4...@dont-email.me:

>>> On 2/19/15 7:00 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> wrote:

[...]

>>>> You are assuming that the Scouring it snot, itself,
>>>> the climax. (As the movie was structured, it wasn't.
>>>> But that's a choice Jackson made, and it's different
>>>> than the choice the Tolkein made with te bhooks.)

>>> It wasn't in the books, either. It may have been the
>>> ultimate POINT for the Hobbit characters, but climax?
>>> No, that was long before.

>> Not structurally.

> Sure the way I see it structurally. The climax comes at
> the destruction of the Ring and end of the big war, and
> the rest is just wrap up.

To the (considerable) extent that it’s Frodo’s tale, the
climax is arguably the encounter with Saruman and
Wormtongue: that’s Frodo’s magnificent moment.

To the extent that it’s the tale of the hobbits in general,
I’d say that the stretch from that point to the successful
scouring is the climax. The epilogue is Frodo’s departure.

And it *is* the tale of the hobbits. We really do see
largely through their eyes. The momentous events taking
place in the larger world are the backdrop for their
stories, their growth. The only other person whom we see
with anything approaching the same intimacy, I think, is
Éowyn.

[erilar]

In article <d2840797-50f3-4c3c...@googlegroups.com>,
Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And for everyone who claims that a book can't be faithfully adapted into a
> film, Mario Puzo says "Hi!"

It happens, but rarely.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

To slightly twist this: Which is worse, inflating one book to three
movies or cutting down three books to fit one movie each? Personally, I
liked what Jackson did with LOTR much better than the padding in the
Hobbit.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[JRStern]

I think that's the script and director, not so much the actor. Right
from the Prancing Pony the book has dialog to establish he "looks foul
and feels fair", that I don't recall in the movie.

I don't think Tolkien was any kind of political royalist, but loved
the "kingship of men" meme too much to make Gondor any kind of
democracy. The hobbits elected a Thane, apparently, but I don't
recall discussion of any dwarfish, elvish, entish, or orcist
elections. It's a tad off kilter, perhaps, that Gondor has hereditary
kings and stewards and even Rohan has royalty, when the theme is
rejecting the tyranny of modernity, ancient Greece and even Germanic
tribes voted, it's as old as anything.

Even the benefits of the dwarvish and elvish rings is thus dubious,
and of course the rings given men showed their danger. Aragorn's
virtues then had to suffice, he had the lineage and proven results to
be a rational choice, and he was given public acclamation at his
crowning ceremony, fwiw. So really the whole story is an extended job
interview, if you want to look at it that way, and the movie captured
most of that as well as the book did.

I'll have to watch ROTK movie again sometime soon, I don't recall how
they played some of Aragorn's paths of the dead and all that.

J.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:54:54 -0800, Alan Baker
<alang...@telus.net> wrote
in<news:mc60ks$pog$1...@news.datemas.de> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 2015-02-20 00:49:56 +0000, Brian M. Scott said:

[...]

>> In Tolkien’s world [Aragorn] is inherently a king; the
>> fact that he isn’t crowned and formally recognized as
>> one until very late in the book is beside the point. I
>> suspect that Jackson simply doesn’t really get that
>> worldview.

> How is that made clear in the books? [...]

If you have to ask, I honestly doubt that I can explain --
certainly not in any amount of time that I’m willing to
spend. It becomes clear pretty quickly to someone familiar
with the underlying worldview: nobility is something real,
not just a matter of status, and he possesses it, largely,
if not entirely, by virtue of his heritage.

The outlook is a combination of the romanticized Merry
England for the Shire and a romanticized high Middle Ages
for the greater world. (And if Mary Gentle’s at all
representative, it’s even more obvious to someone who saw
too much of its ugly underbelly growing up. _Grunts!_
wasn’t just Mary having fun.)

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 2/20/15 8:37 PM, erilar wrote:
> To slightly twist this: Which is worse, inflating one book to three
> movies or cutting down three books to fit one movie each? Personally, I
> liked what Jackson did with LOTR much better than the padding in the
> Hobbit.
>

I like both, overall, but the Hobbit better. If he'd filmed The Hobbit
exactly as written, it would have been three films, with a lot of boring
parts. If he'd trimmed it to the exciting stuff and done nothing else,
it would have been one film. What he did was add in a story that Tolkien
dismissed in about three lines, leaving me saying "WHAT? You had that
awesome story to tell AND NEVER BOTHERED???", and used it to tie
everything together.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:41:02 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Richard Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:43ffd4d6-a13a-42f2...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Well, it's one of the things wrong with the Peter Jackson
>> movies. I recently re-read LotR for the first time in perhaps a
>> decade or two, and also re-watched the first of the movies.
>> What struck me is that what makes the book good and what makes
>> the movie good (to the extent that it is) are pretty much
>> disjoint sets. Yes, part of this is because of the different
>> media, but not all. I did not come away with the sense that
>> Jackson "gets" Tolkien in any but a superficial way.
>>
>They're really different stories. The movies are the story of the
>war, the books are the story of the Hobbits. The most stark
>difference is cutting the Scouring of the Shire from the movies,
>which is the whole point of the books.

The destruction of the One Ring and the fall of Sauron were
anti-climatic to me. For me, the story resolved when Lobelia was
rescued.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-02-20, Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe he didn't. However, I couldn't tell because, according to at least one
> authority figure in my life, I'm immune to that sort of stuff. All anyone
> really should have done with kings is kill them.

... is your middle name "Vimes" by any chance?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-02-21, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote

>> On 2015-02-20 00:49:56 +0000, Brian M. Scott said:

>>> In Tolkien???s world [Aragorn] is inherently a king; the
>>> fact that he isn???t crowned and formally recognized as

>>> one until very late in the book is beside the point. I

>>> suspect that Jackson simply doesn???t really get that

>>> worldview.
>
>> How is that made clear in the books? [...]
>
> If you have to ask, I honestly doubt that I can explain --

> certainly not in any amount of time that I???m willing to

> spend. It becomes clear pretty quickly to someone familiar
> with the underlying worldview: nobility is something real,
> not just a matter of status, and he possesses it, largely,
> if not entirely, by virtue of his heritage.

Another way to look at is that in Tolkien's world, there IS magic. Of various
different types, as well. Some was racial - if you were a <race>, this was just
Something You Could Do that other races couldn't. Some was practiced - stuff
you learned to do, or had a talent for doing; Feanor was the premier crafter
among the Elves, if I recall right, and had access to craft magics that nobody
else could duplicate (not even himself, later). Some was inherent in a role -
and this is where Aragorn comes in: humans, and other races, had Kings, and
in humans, one of the ways you KNEW someone was a King ("he hasn't got shit all
over him!" ... shut up), or destined to be one, was that he had a healing touch
that common people, and even other nobles, did not. Presumably Queens had
something else about as powerful... and it's a real differentiator, there.
Pretenders to a throne wouldn't be able to do it. Gandalf had access to various
sorts and classes of magics by virtue of being a Wizard, and presumably others
by being a Maia; the five Wizards specialized in different things once they
were here, but I think they all started off with the same possibilities.