“This should be merged with the existing Lord of the Rings entry. But, I can't find a way to show them on the same page so that I can perform that operation.”
“in my shelf it shows up as published in 2004, wouldnt 1955 be more correct?could someone fix that?”
“who thinks the movie doesnt resemble the book”
“i recently watched the movieSCARRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY”
“In regards to the movies...I agree that there are some brilliant and soaring aspects of Peter Jackson's films, but there are also some pretty gaping flaws in them as well. I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for those who think Tolkien's work is "inaccessible." If you feel this way, you probably don't have the same tastes and passions that Tolkien himself had. In my mind, that means you can't really appreciate or understand the book for what it really is. You may appreciate it or understand it in other terms or on other grounds, but your appreciation and understanding will therefore necessarily be an incomplete and partial appreciation and understanding. And there's a huge difference between people having trouble getting through a book for a "good" reason, and people having trouble getting through it for an understandable reason. A reason may be understandable, but that doesn't make it a good reason. Tree porn? I'm trying very hard not to be rude here, but... seriously? I think there are several problems with this categorization. But for someone to even be able to say that, makes me wonder if there's any point discussing what the problems are in the first place. I would argue that trees are a large part of (a) one of Tolkien's personal passions, and to my mind an admirable one, and (b), one of the main motifs that he uses throughout the book, and to great effect. Personally, I have little sympathy for those who don't have sympathy for trees. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "tree-hugger," in that sense. I realize trees feel no pain, are not persons or personalities, and are ultimately negligible in comparison to human life and even animal life. But I also think that there's something wrong with those who don't understand their vital importance, their role in the natural environment, and their singular beauty. Keep in mind that before Tolkien (and still, for a while, even after him), there was no such thing as an environmentalist. Tolkien's work constitutes a huge and important step in that direction. As for Legolas' hair, I could reply, "Who cares?" Does it really develop his character to tell us he's blonde, or a brunette? Also, from reading other works of Tolkien's, we do know his hair color, within a reasonable doubt. We are told he is of the Wood Elves of Mirkwood, and thus not one of the Light Elves who had once been over the Sea, or one of their descendants. Nothing is ever suggested that he has any ancestors among the house of Finarfin, the only fair-haired Elves in Tolkien's legendarium. Thus, he has black hair. You're right that the movie presents in a few seconds what the book takes pages to describe. But this can be seen as a serious, grievous drawback, just as much as a benefit. It all depends on one's tastes. I think both have their strengths and their weaknesses. The two experiences are different, but if forced to choose I'd take the book almost every time. You're also right that they couldn't include every bit of the book. That doesn't mean they couldn't at least have been faithful to the book. At more than one place it seemed that changes were arbitrary, and made simply because Jackson wished to put his own unique stamp on the story; to "own" it or to "make it his," so to speak. ”
“Nothingpetty, I wonder, if your definition of the term "homo-emotional" is not to be understood as necessarily including romantic, physical or sexual overtones, why the prefix "homo-" is needed at all. If you really intend the sense of the term to be what you describe it as, wouldn't "emotional" by itself serve just as well? To my mind, despite your disclaimer, this term seems to be an attempt to smuggle in homo-erotic overtones where there may not necessarily be ones. I have to make a somewhat long (and possibly unnecessary) digression in response to your reading of Sam & Frodo's relationship. You seem to be at least somewhat knowledgeable in terms of the customs of the time period in which Tolkien lived and wrote. It is true that, as you suggest in your final statement, men in Tolkien's day had lost an ability to emotionally express themselves to other men. The "Victorian" view of emotion is that it is something not fitting for dignified men to express, that it is womanish and inappropriate except among women. But this Victorian view is highly atypical historically, and I think that, despite your obvious condemnation of it, your (seemingly) reading of Frodo & Sam's relationship as a romantic one is highly affected by this Victorian thinking. Let me explain. In past ages, and in other cultures, emotion was expressed openly and unreservedly. Men kissed other men on the cheek, on the forehead, on the hand, sometimes on the mouth, and in none of these situations was there even an inkling of a thought of sexuality or romantic feeling. These were simply expressions of gratitude, admiration and the love that exists between friends (a quite different and distinct species of love from that which exists between lovers). These emotional expressions existed between men and other men, and between women and other women. If you were to comment that a woman kissing a woman in this way, or a man kissing a man in this way, was an instance of an individual kissing another individual of the same sex, these people would think your comment had no more value or significance than pointing out that both the sky and the sea are blue. "True, but what's the point?" would be their thought. If one suggested there was something sexual or romantic in it they would likely laugh at his simplicity. I'm not trying to say you are simple. I'm just saying that the same thinking that is behind the Victorian view that men should not express emotion in such an open way is the exact same thinking behind the view that men who do express emotion in such a way must therefore have some romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship. Perhaps -- and that's a big perhaps -- this is true today, but it isn't true in historical contexts, nor in the context of LoTR. Just as all plants are still plants while remaining distinct and different, all species of love are still love while remaining distinct and different. Yes, Frodo and Sam sometimes treat each other as spouses do. They also treat each other as traveling companions do, as friends do, and even as mother and child do (the last, in the final stretches of the journey to Mount Doom). Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying in any way that your observations are wrong. They are all factually true. Perhaps I am completely off-base in thinking that you're ascribing a homosexual or romantic aspect to the book. If I am, then, as I said, all this has been unnecessary. But I still think it's worth posting, since this is a somewhat common misunderstanding that is prevalent in today's shockingly historically ignorant climate. I also enjoy discussing these things. Hope you're having as much fun as I am! ”
“Sorry for taking such a long time to respond! Nothingpetty: I admire your humility, but I think it's fair and safe to label anything that examines a piece of literature and attempts to explore it in an intelligent way "literary criticism." But I think my point still stands. If you have a problem with a theme or an idea in a text, it's not enough just to state that that idea or theme exists, and assume everyone will agree with you in disapproving of it. You must explain why its existence is problematic. And I agree with you very much in your opinion on disagreements. Personal assistant? Hm. I'm not sure I'd concur with that. I do think servant is a more appropriate term, as the former sounds too professional and emotionally removed. Of course, the same can be said of the servant as well. But there is definitely an element of dedicated service on Sam's behalf. As to your valley and peak simile, I don't think I'd put it in the same terms as you did. I would not say "neither are wholly false nor true," but that in this particular question there is no real element of truth to be found, or else that what truth there is is not a very significant one. By "now-minded" I meant "in the mindset that is prevalent now," which myopically views the past in a simplistic and dismissive way. It's close (but not exactly the same) to what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." The problem with portraying a generic truth, against which contradictions only emphasize the generic backdrop, is the same problem that plagues pessimists and optimists alike. One says the world is white with a few black spots that can be explained away, the other that the world is black with a few white spots that can be explained away. Either view is unfair because it seeks to dismiss all exceptions. I think we have to take the whole truth, the whole picture, varied and complicated as it is. Of course people didn't act as good as they should have. But I think it's uncharitable and inaccurate to say that it was just how things were done back then. Back then, people struggled against bad habit and bad custom at least as much as they do now. Again, I disagree with your understanding of the Scouring of the Shire. Yes, the hobbits were cowed. But the actual series of changes was more complex than that statement would suggest. Tolkien goes to great lengths to emphasize that the changes were gradual, and that if the hobbits weren't exactly enamoured of them, they certainly didn't object to them that strongly. At those early points, the changes were still slight and weak enough that, had they really wished, they could have stopped them if they had enough desire and motivation to. I think this is an important point Tolkien is making: that often we get into the worst situations not because of sudden tragedies, but because of a long chain of complacency in the face of gradually escalating situations. You are absolutely right when you say we must traverse change wisely. But what does traversing it wisely mean? Doesn't it mean taking it slowly and deliberately, confronting it in a manner that is anything but hasty, and trying as best we can to judge it wisely instead of accepting it enthusiastically? Of course, some changes are obviously good. But others are not, and other still appear to be so while in actuality not being so. Because of this I think healthy curiosity and skepticism in the face of change is highly warranted. There are not only a lot of things we don't know, we also do not even know how much we don't know. ”
“"There is also the problem of what my friends and I call tree porn."That's a very funny designation. " it's not fair to hate such a good adaptation just because it didn't (and couldn't) include every bit of the books.” You're absolutly on. The LOTR films were a near perfect adaptation. All the important plot points were made.”
“Re: discussion of the moviesI think that the movies are brilliant adaptations. There are a few moments I would change, but as a whole, they bring to the screen much of what I love about these books. They also make the books accessible to more people. While I love these books, know that many people have trouble getting through them, and for good reasons. Tolkien focuses much more on plot than character, and in some ways that's okay. There are certainly plenty of fanfic writers to fill that in. It is something that some people require to enjoy a story, however, and and not therefor enjoy the book because of it. I have heard some complaint about his ability to write female characters, but I am not sure I agree entirely, so I will not discuss it further. There is also the problem of what my friends and I call tree porn. That is, the excessive description of trees (and other landscape). Seriously, he describes Minis Tirith in clear detail but we don't even know the color of Legolas' hair. I must admit even I get bored during some of these sections. In this case, the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" comes into play, because the movie can capture in a few seconds what it takes Tolkien pages to describe.In short, the book is always better than the movie. It can't be helped. But the movie brings it to people who would never dream of pick up the book, and to some people who tried and couldn't manage it. And some of those people will try to read the books (again or for the first time) because of the movie. So it's not fair to hate such a good adaptation just because it didn't (and couldn't) include every bit of the books.”
