Topic: So I read it

Not to post two off-topic thingies in one day, but I've been meaning to share this one for a while.

I can now stand up and be counted among the souls who have read "The Lord of the Rings" all the way through.

Wanna touch me? Five dollars.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

I bought the paperbacks just before the 1st movie came out, and... never finished them. They look nice in my bookcase. I listened to the audiobook (24hrs long) twice though, so there.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

My experience went like this: Everything up to the Council of Elrond is utter shit. I had to force myself, through pure stubbornness, to slog through that mess. Please don't say the word "Bombadil" to me. I'm liable to punch you on pure reflex.

After the Council of Elrond, it gets pretty okay. Not perfect, but not bad either.

Then, in the second half of "Return of the King," there's one little paragraph that's just fucking awesome. I liked the movies. I liked them a lot; I'd consider myself a fan. But this one paragraph absolutely eclipses anything that made it to the screen. That's not a criticism; it's not the kind of thing that could really translate to film. But that one paragraph made the whole six-week reading worth it for me.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Everything up to the Council of Elrond is utter shit.

No, i don't agree. I was struck by the 'old-fashioned-ness' of the language (at least the narrator didn't say 'presently' every other sentence like a lot of old books); and Tolkien obviously wrote the opening chapters for himself and didn't give a poop if the readers found them overly detailed or boring.

Songs, writing, detailed family trees - Tolkien lived there. He just wrote the books to share it all.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

After the Council of Elrond, it gets pretty okay.

I hated Legolas. Basically all he says is "Oh haiy!" over and over.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

But that one paragraph made the whole six-week reading worth it for me.

Ok i'll bite, which paragraph is it?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Ohyeah. I guess I should have finished that thought. Sorry. The paragraph in question:

"His thought turned to the Ring, but there was no comfort there, only dread and danger. No sooner had he come in sight of Mount Doom, burning far away, than he was aware of a change in his burden. As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the deeps of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring's power grew, and it became more fell, untameable save by some mighty will. As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, a vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor. He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows. Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dûr. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He only had to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be."

Last edited by Jeffery Harrell (2010-07-14 12:35:09)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

tl, dr.

I mean, that paragraph.

Geeze.

I'd get there, I'd just skim it.

Get over yourself, Tolkein.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

This is Not the Book for You, apparently.

Though I did notice something when I transcribed it that I hadn't been aware of while I was merely reading it: commas. Lots of commas. (Cue seemingly endless racks of punctuation marks whooshing into an otherwise empty void.)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

This is Not the Book for You, apparently.

Though I did notice something when I transcribed it that I hadn't been aware of while I was merely reading it: commas. Lots of commas. (Cue seemingly endless racks of punctuation marks whooshing into an otherwise empty void.)

Yeah, that's exactly the comment I made to Aimee after I snarked.

I sat, looking at the screen, large and powerful on my desk, and gazed, fervently, fluidly, and fastideously, into the paragraph of text, forged in England half a century ago, and tried, with all my might, to make it to the end, possibly not even to the end of the entire passage, but perhaps, in the trails and tribulations of time, to make it to the end of one single, solitary, sobering, scintillating, scornful sentence.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Woah. That's actually pretty good, for a tossed-off gag. Props.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

For the record, I have read the entirety of LOTR as well. But it was over a decade ago, and I can't promise that I didn't skim it. I started the Hobbit the other day (I've read that one several times), but the Mistborn books are taking my attention ATM.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Oh, there was skimming. There was definitely skimming.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

I love the LotR books, altho even as a teenager I saw the leisurely attitude Tolkein took toward pacing. His goal wasn't a rip-roaring adventure, tho. It was immersion in this world he created. I adored the languages, the genealogies, and all the other stuff in the appendices.

Jeffery's paragraph is the very hinge of the whole epic. Sam is the one character in all Middle Earth who confronts the power of the ring on its own terms and beats it. Note the phrase "untameable save by some mighty will". Who is that will? It's not Frodo (he succumbs in the end), and it's not Gandalf or Aragorn (they keep away from the ring). It's Sam.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: So I read it

Yeah, I didn't bother to transcribe the next paragraph down. Tolkein talks about how ultimately it's Sam's "hobbit-sense" that saves him, that he one small garden is all a gardener needs, not a whole kingdom. It's about humility in the face of blind ambition and lust for power.

I knew the story behind the Lord of the Rings long before the movies came out, but the ring seemed rather silly to me. It makes you invisible, whoopty shit. But the movies did a very good job of saying "Okay, no, for serious, this ring is a very big deal." It was never explained why, just alluded to (and occasionally outright stated), and that was fine.

But only the book really cemented in my head just what the ring is, in context of the story. It promises things. It makes you feel like you can take over the world — and you can. Right up to the point where the ring slips off your finger.

The ring is cocaine, basically.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

I think it's Terry Pratchett who said any 14 year old who doesn't think Lord of the Rings is the best book ever is an idiot, and any 40 year old who still thinks that is also an idiot. I read them well over a half dozen times as a teen, until I literally OD'd on the suckers and could no longer look at the pages. The interesting thing is I never saw all the subtext and themes that some fans say were missing from the films- I wasn't looking for subtext, so didn't find any.

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Read them all a while back. I try to re-read them every year but end up just skimming them. I always, always skip FOTR up to the Council of Elrond (but usually skip FOTR altogether).

It's not until ROTK that you start to get Crowning Moments of Awesome. Aragorn's arrival at Minas Tirith, the unfurling of his new standard above the newly arrived ships up the Anduin, is a great moment.

That said my favourite line in the entire thing is from Faramir.

“I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend”.

The Unfinished Tales have some great LOTR stuff as well. Isildur and the Fords of Isen are really great pieces. There's a grandeur and a hint of tragedy to much of Tolkien's work.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

redxavier wrote:

Read them all a while back. I try to re-read them every year but end up just skimming them. I always, always skip FOTR up to the Council of Elrond (but usually skip FOTR altogether).

Fellowship is still a sequel to The Hobbit, and so has the lighter tone and humor of that book to start with. The shift from the birthday party to Moria is a rather large one.

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

You punk ass kids, I read The Silmarillion. Yeah, all of it.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Zarban wrote:

It's Sam.

Don't forget Bilbo. Gandalf had to talk him into it but Bilbo also got rid of it of his own free will.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Yeah, I didn't bother to transcribe the next paragraph down. Tolkein talks about how ultimately it's Sam's "hobbit-sense" that saves him, that he one small garden is all a gardener needs, not a whole kingdom. It's about humility in the face of blind ambition and lust for power.

Humility. Most people think they'll come off as losers if they ever act humble. I like sports but it's tough to root for individuals cause they're so cocky. That's probably why people turn so viciously on people like Tiger Woods. And that LeBron James TV thing last week was ridiculous.

Uh, so yeah LotR.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Gandalf had to talk him into it but Bilbo also got rid of it of his own free will.

Well, I think that's more an artifact of the story's construction and evolution. As Invid pointed out, and I think is fairly obvious, the end of the book is almost entirely different from the beginning of the book. Once the ring's true nature is established, I think the notion of Bilbo just sitting on it all those years, and ultimately handing it over with little more than a pout, loses all credibility.

Then again, Tolkein did go out of his way to say that the ring became more powerful and seductive the closer it got to Mordor. So maybe that's the out that explains how Bilbo could emerge from under it's shadow relatively unscathed, and for that matter how Gollum could merely become insane rather than trying to take over the world. They both spent all their time well outside the ring's locus of power.

Then again again, we are talking about the writer who threw Bombadil (shudder) in there seemingly just to make the point that the ring was really no big shakes after all, and hey, aren't poems much more awesome anyway. Stupid Bombadil. Those chapters never should've hit the press.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

... the notion of Bilbo just sitting on it all those years, and ultimately handing it over with little more than a pout, loses all credibility. ...

He's a packrat. It was just a pretty ring. Even Galdalf didn't know what it was. The "sleeping" ring trickle-charged evil into Bilbo for years, so we shouldn't underestimate what he did.

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

... how Gollum could merely become insane rather than trying to take over the world.

I'd say Gollum 'didn't count' for Tolkien. He was sub-human. He'll betray you in the end, garranteed.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

I dunno, I kind of got the impression that Gollum's proto-hobbit nature was key to his relative banality under the ring's influence. It seems like the ring's great evil is the stoking of ambition, so the characters with the least ambition — hobbits — are the least affected by it.

Where I wrote "ambition" feel free to substitute "greed" or "lust for material things or power," 'cause I think either of those fit as well.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Invid wrote:

I read them well over a half dozen times as a teen, until I literally OD'd on the suckers and could no longer look at the pages.

Yeah, i'm like that with some movies. I was too young to see Blade Runner when it came out in theatres, but watched the shit out of it on vhs. I still have the director's cut laserdisc from '92. Saw it in a repertory theatre about 10yrs ago, which was awesome. Today i can't really watch it unless i get wasted first.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Blade Runner bores me to freaking TEARS. I love the production design, but I just don't get at all what people love about the movie.

And even going into a viewing KNOWING that there's a debate about whether Harrison Ford is a replicant or not, I don't see anything in the movie itself that hints one way or the other.

Posted from my iPad
http://trek.fm

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: So I read it

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

Gandalf had to talk him into it but Bilbo also got rid of it of his own free will.

I think the notion of Bilbo just sitting on it all those years, and ultimately handing it over with little more than a pout, loses all credibility.

Then again, Tolkein did go out of his way to say that the ring became more powerful and seductive the closer it got to Mordor.

For me, the ring and its influence are consistent, given the modest contrivance it becomes more powerful closer to Mordor. Gollum was driven to murder and madness, but not conquest. (The human ring-bearers, meanwhile, were reduced to Ring Wraiths.) Bilbo is on his way to that same place when Gandalf persuades him to give it up. (See his reaction in Rivendell when he re-encounters it.) And nearly the same thing happens to Frodo, altho he only succumbs at the very end. But Sam faces the ring down in its own domain and beats it. (Note how Galadriel has essentially the same insane fantasy as Sam even tho she only encountered the ring briefly, outside Mordor.)

It's rather similar to the way Malory unfolded the Grail quest: Lancelot and Gawain fail despite being the greatest knights because they were adulterers. Bors comes close but fails because he once succumbed to lust. Percival nearly succeeds but misses because he was once tempted. And only Galahad achieves the Grail because he is the only perfect knight.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: So I read it

Gregory Harbin wrote:

Blade Runner bores me to freaking TEARS. ... And even going into a viewing KNOWING that there's a debate about whether Harrison Ford is a replicant or not, I don't see anything in the movie itself that hints one way or the other.

Blade Runner is one film that started out as "meh" and then really grew on me. It's essentially film noir: no one in the film is innocent—not even Rachael. And Deckard is the ultimate human protagonist: he fails.

However, I cannot stand the cuts with the unicorn origami. Since Deckard dreams of unicorns but tells no one, Gaff's use of the unicorn suggests he knows what is in Deckard's dreams, just as Deckard knew all about Rachael's dreams—meaning Deckard is a replicant duped into retiring other replicants. But that utterly ruins the theme of Deckard as the fallible human foil to Roy Batty's subhuman-superhuman.

Worse, why dream of unicorns? They can't be real dreams, like Rachael's were, copied from a real person, so they must represent something. So what does a unicorn represent? Some unattainable fantasy, like extra life? Deckard doesn't have that fantasy—Batty does. But more to the point: the short story is called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". (Deckard once owned a real sheep.) So why not have him dream of sheep?

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries