A question about LOTR

[Captain Faramir]

Not only that, the pacing is essential to the validity of LOTR as a story. In a movie you can forego it, and don't get me wrong, I don't think there is a more masterfully created movie in the world--period.

Nonetheless, the books have a depth that the movies can't capture, the movement of time and age which can only be reflected as history. The movies are just that--movies. The books, however, reflect an imagined history of some legitimate place, and they don't move in one exciting sequence--they move in a real chronology akin to our own perception of time and space, and that's what makes them better than so much of the trite fantasy we see today. Long years have to pass before things transpire, but when they do, as happens in the books, they roll through in a few quick months. The Lord of the Rings would never have been taken seriously if it had been as succinct as the films, but because of the natural passage of time and the astute, if not astounding, attention to detail so typical of Tolkein, critics have come to regard it as one of the greatest achievements of literature in our time. Those patterns had to be followed to fit the literary molds he was using, as well as to adapt them to modern readers. Those parts have a depth rich in lore and tradition, and he couldn't have done a better job than to keep them within the story.

Now, lest you feel I'm movie-bashing, let me say that no films have ever compared to Lord of the Rings in the beauty of its design, the quality of its acting, and the magnificence of its writing. They also are unparalleled as works, not just of cinema, but of art. Tolkein's influence has become ubiquitous in both literature and cinema. Any wonder I'm such a fan?

 

[pixletwin]

OK you guys. Indepth/richness has nothing to do with the pacing at the begining. Bombadil, yes. The Old Forrest/Farmer Maggot, yes. The Barrow weights [sic], yes.

I am not talking about something which adds to the richness of the story.

You guys tell me one way that Frodo hanging around the shire for decades adds to the richness of LOTR.

I'm waiting.

 

[RoboDad]

Man I have been into LOTR since 1978. You can "professor" this and "movie-focus" that, but in the end it is still a matter of opinion. I do think PJ paced FOTR better then professor Tolkien.

Really, Frodo "doop-dee dooing" his way around the Shire for decades while he holds onto the ring is lame, IMO. I thought it was lame LOOOOOOONG before the movies came out and I still think its lame.

Don't you go lecturing me, you whippersnapper!

I've been into LOTR since '74, so I've got you beat!

But seriously, my comment wasn't meant to imply that "movie-focused" fans are people whose first exposure to the story was through the movies. Rather, it is people who (in general) prefer some aspects of the movies to their book counterparts. As much as I like the movies, there is not one single revision to the story -- be it an omission, change or addition -- that I prefer in any way to the original way the story was told in the books.

As far as your claim that the events surrounding Frodo's departure from the Shire were lame, well, let's just say I profoundly disagree. And, I think you have grossly oversimplified some events, and misrepresented others. Gandalf did not know, at first, that the ring that Frodo possessed was the One Ring. As he explained at the Council of Elrond, he believed (and hoped) that it could have been one of the "lesser rings". It wasn't until he interrogated Gollum, completed his research in Minas Tirith, and learned of the Nine being in search of a land called "Shire" that his suspicions were confirmed. Even then, he needed to apply the fire test to verify everything he had learned. Until that point, he believed that, even if Frodo's ring was the One Ring, it was better to keep it hidden away in a place that Sauron would never think to look in.

Couple those facts with Frodo's intense reluctance to abandon his home, his ignorance of the gravity of his peril, and his general hobbit-like resistance to "adventures", and the book portrayal is masterfully executed, IMO.

 

[Captain Faramir]

In the tradition of faerie story, a modern examply of which Tolkein intended to create, the hero comes from ambiguous, umimportant beginnings. Arthur, Beowulf, etc.--each must pass years of obscurity in which they become a part of their homes. After these years pass, they come to perceive themselves as a prt of it, though in truth they are unique--Beowulf was no warrior, Arthur was no king, Frodo was no hero. Yet they are in truth, and Frodo is compelled to leave the settlement he falsely assumed to have taken in the Shire. Such a rending is essential to Frodo's sacrifice--if he did not love the Shire, if he had not enjoyed a peaceful life there, he would have had nothing to lose. But he HAD settled, and would have lived happily.

So it is with the truly great heros. Their sacrifice must be immense, their loss tremendous. Frodo loses what was a happy life of peace, but unlike Aragorn, he wins no kingdom, no princess--he can't even dwell in the Shire anymore--in short, keeping him there all those years means that by losing it, Frodo can never keep it. It's not fair. Which of course is how Tolkein wants it to be. Frodo loses a settled rest and must travel over the sea forever, wandering to find his rest. Such is a neccessary contrast to Aragorn, the typical hero who must wander his whole life, and in settling, find rest. You must contrast Frodo with Aragorn in order to understand both, and the comparison of Frodo passing 30 years in peace only to wander to the sea marks the difference between Aragorn laboring for over 30 years in protection of the Shire before he can settle into his kingdom. You must see the whole story to get the depth of what Tolkein has created. Frodo's years of idyllic peace end in wandering sorrow, while Aragorn's years of burdon end with a peaceful and stable kingdom. Frodo sacrificed for Aragorn, as did Aragorn for Frodo. The interplay is the central link between Frodo and Aragorn, and the one is no hero without the other.

 

[Wetanut]

Am gonna inject in here....maybe nothing to do with the points being made. But, I've never tried to compare the movies with the books. I take each at their face value as exemplary representations of their particular media. I truly loved the movies -- for all the reasons that Cap Aldegon listed so eloquently and more. I LOVED the books (annually since 1967). Neither diminishes each other. When I sat down at FOTR for the first time, I noted the changes (acceleration of time between identity of ring and Frodo's departure; no Bombadil (yay!); no barrow wrights (hmmm...wonder how they gonna address the special swords the hobbits got there -- especially Merry's which was VITAL in ROTK with WK and Eowyn); no gift-giving at Lothlorien (hmmmm...wonder how they'll work out the elvish rope that needs to be used to keep Gollum at bay in beginning); etc. etc. I quickly made up my mind that I wasn't going to fall into the trap of comparing my favorite books of all time to ruin my enjoyment of an otherwise excellent movie.

 

[pixletwin]

I know about Gandalfs wandering to find out the origins of the ring, but even once he tells Frodo it takes Frodo years to get out of the Shire.

I am also aware that its purpose is largely expository, so we all know Frodo loves the Shire. I'm just not convinced that he needed all those years to spell that out to the reader.

Ahhhh.... There is no geeking out quite like LOTR geeking out.

 

[RoboDad]

Well put Wetanut, but I do need to clarify that the changes made to the movies do not ruin the experience for me. In many cases, I recognize the necessity of the changes, in order to adequately translate the story to a visual medium. The alternative would have been ridiculously long running times for the movies, which would realistically translate to the project getting canceled.

But, in a pure narrative sense, I cannot agree with the idea that Peter Jackson's interpretation of the story is better in any way than Tolkien's. And I certainly don't "yay!" at the omission of one of my favorite characters and sequences from the book.

 

[RoboDad]

I know about Gandalfs wandering to find out the origins of the ring, but even once he tells Frodo it takes Frodo years to get out of the Shire.

No it didn't. The events from Shadow of the Past occurred in April of 3018. Gandalf remained in Hobbiton for two months, trying to urge Frodo to quietly complete his plans to leave. In June, Gandalf left, met Radagast, went to see Saruman, and was imprisoned.

Frodo remained in Hobbiton until September, hoping that Gandalf would return to accompany him. When Gandalf never returned, he set out on his own, on September 23rd (the same day that the Riders enter the Shire).

Appendix B is your friend.

 

[pixletwin]

I cannot agree with the idea that Peter Jackson's interpretation of the story is better in any way than Tolkien's.

I never said anything so all encompassing as what you are saying. But yeah, there it is.

 

[pixletwin]

Appendix B is your friend.

 

[RoboDad]

I never said anything so all encompassing as what you are saying. But yeah, there it is.

How, exactly, is the phrase "in any way" all encompassing?

Some people think that the omission of Bombadil improves the narrative. I disagree. Some people think the compression of time between the beginning of the story and Frodo's departure from the Shire improves the narrative. I disagree. Some people think the omission of the Scouring improves the narrative. I profoundly disagree.

 

[King Darkness]

Can we agree that Tolkien is a better writer and Jackson is a better film maker?

 

[Captain Faramir]

Yes! I can at least.

 

[RoboDad]

Of course. I don't think that has ever been the issue. He made changes that were necessary to successfully bring the story to the screen. But those changes don't inherently improve the story. They merely interpret it.

 

[pixletwin]

How, exactly, is the phrase "in any way" all encompassing?

You are implying that my position is PJ = and Tolkien = ; which is not true. You haven't spelled it out, but I gleened from your words that you are misrepresenting my feelings about the Frodo in the shire and the scouring chapter as how I feel generally about the movies vs. the books. This simply is not true. This is what I meant by "all encompassing".

The fact of the matter is that most first-time readers have a difficult time getting through these chapters because they drag on. This is a weakness (as well as one of the strengths) in the writing of Tolkien. He dwells endlessly on certain narrative passages that are not needed. Yes we know Frodo loves the Shire, can we move on?

I can live with that anyway. But to get back to what my original point was: The scouring is lame. Why is it lame? Because the whole book (if I my borrow your terms) profoundly looses its momentum during this chapter. What does it bring to the table in terms of good story-telling? I know the social commentaries Tolkien was trying to make (WW1 and industrialization etc...) but these are all points which he has handled more than adequately elsewhere. Why did he feel the need to beat the reader over the head?

Again, just my opinion which I'm entitled too. I don't mean to get anyones noses bent out of joint. I respect your opinion.

 

[Fritz]

I'll never forgive PJ for taking away the Barrow Wights.

Although I'd give him a big hug for putting Narsil in Rivendell rather than having Aragorn carry around a broken sword.

Tolkien himself admitted there were things he would change in the Lord of the Rings but it was too late to do so.

In any case, Tolkien > Peter Jackson.

 

[pixletwin]

I'll never forgive PJ for taking away the Barrow Wights.

Although I'd give him a big hug for putting Narsil in Rivendell rather than having Aragorn carry around a broken sword.

Tolkien himself admitted there were things he would change in the Lord of the Rings but it was too late to do so.

In any case, Tolkien > Peter Jackson.

 

[Beren]

<snip>

Now, lest you feel I'm movie-bashing, let me say that no films have ever compared to Lord of the Rings in the beauty of its design, the quality of its acting, and the magnificence of its writing. They also are unparalleled as works, not just of cinema, but of art. Tolkein's influence has become ubiquitous in both literature and cinema. Any wonder I'm such a fan?

Dude... you write with such eloquence and such passion... yet it drives me nuts that you don't know how to write the beloved author's NAME!

TolkIEN, not Tolkein! (And BTW, your fave author was very peeved if people got that wrong... )

Beren

 

[RoboDad]

You are implying that my position is PJ = and Tolkien = ; which is not true. You haven't spelled it out, but I gleened from your words that you are misrepresenting my feelings about the Frodo in the shire and the scouring chapter as how I feel generally about the movies vs. the books. This simply is not true. This is what I meant by "all encompassing".

The fact of the matter is that most first-time readers have a difficult time getting through these chapters because they drag on. This is a weakness (as well as one of the strengths) in the writing of Tolkien. He dwells endlessly on certain narrative passages that are not needed. Yes we know Frodo loves the Shire, can we move on?

I can live with that anyway. But to get back to what my original point was: The scouring is lame. Why is it lame? Because the whole book (if I my borrow your terms) profoundly looses its momentum during this chapter. What does it bring to the table in terms of good story-telling? I know the social commentaries Tolkien was trying to make (WW1 and industrialization etc...) but these are all points which he has handled more than adequately elsewhere. Why did he feel the need to beat the reader over the head?

Again, just my opinion which I'm entitled too. I don't mean to get anyones noses bent out of joint. I respect your opinion.

I never meant to imply anything about your position, and I am very sorry if that is the way my comments came across. Of course, all of this has just been people sharing (and defending) their own opinions. I thought that much went without needing to be said.

My only point was that, although some people prefer some of the changes Jackson made to the movies over the book versions (such as the omission of Bombadil, and by necessary extension, the Barrow Downs), I don't believe that makes him a better storyteller. Yet, there have been people who have said as much. Not so much in this thread, but over time.

Again, I hope there are no hard feelings. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being here.


Now, about Balrog wings...

 

[LOTRFan]

I can live with that anyway. But to get back to what my original point was: The scouring is lame. Why is it lame? Because the whole book (if I my borrow your terms) profoundly looses its momentum during this chapter. What does it bring to the table in terms of good story-telling? I know the social commentaries Tolkien was trying to make (WW1 and industrialization etc...) but these are all points which he has handled more than adequately elsewhere. Why did he feel the need to beat the reader over the head?

But that's just it isn't it, he wasn't trying to make any form of social critique or commentary, and certainly not in any allegorical sense - see the prologue. I do agree however that inevitably one's own world view and surrounds will be exhibited in their writings, that is unescapable.

Either way, I actually liked most of the changes made by PJ and co; with the exception of:

1) The elves at Helm's Deep

2) Gandalf's staff breaking

and the near catastrophe of Arwen at Helm's Deep and Aragorn fighting Sauron --- phew, we avoided those!