The Lord of The Rings

[peter]

Yes, I can appreciate that Wayfriend - I've often thought I'd like to read the earlier drafts of the Chrons for much the same reason, especially the bits that Lester Dent wanted removed and trimmed back. This for me would be the equivalent of a 'directors cut' movie. Thanks for the warning re the endings of the films/books. Shouldn't be a problem now I'm forarmed as it were.

Back to TLOTR reading; last night I 'did' the Council of Elrond and noticed a tangible shift in the way that the spoken word was used by the characters (it is almost entirely spoken text - very little descriptive sentences I think outside of those given by the speakers themselves). A richness of language use, more formal if you like, appeared in the dialogue between the speakers, that is much to my taste. In fact I believe, now I think on it, that the whole work has gradually moved from a less demanding (almost children's) reading style at the beginning through a more adult stage to an at last quite difficult (initially) formal form that, once grasped, makes for very rewarding reading. To this end I found myself rereading sentences and on occasion more, for the simple pleasure of the word-crafting therein.

[wayfriend]

Well, if that is what rings your bell, then you may like The History of Middle Earth. Not all of it ... but three of the volumes describe how the story changed through successive drafts, including the text of the original drafts.

Having read it: It's clear Tolkien didn't write with the ending already in mind. He just had ideas and followed them until they dead-ended. For this reason, the first drafts of LOTR were very much Hobbit Part II. In the first draft, the Aragorn character was a Hobbit nicknamed "Trotter" and wore wooden shoes. (He nevertheless was a Ranger - the Rangers were Hobbits who guarded the Shire.) This got abandoned when they were in Bree somewhere, and the whole thing was started again.

I would have to say, your recognition of a change in tone is quite likely due to rewrites such as these. Not necessarily because of inconsistency. But because the author shifted directions quite significantly.

[Rawedge Rim]

Loved the Simarillion, even if a bit slow in areas.

Actually would like to see Jackson or someone do something with the Dwarf\Orc wars.

Such was the tale [of Thror's death at the hands of Azog] that Nar brought back to Thrain; and when he had wept and torn his beard he fell silent. Seven days he sat and said no word. Then he stood up and said:

"This cannot be borne!"....

[peter]

Love it...... It has a 'tearing of hair and a gnashing of teeth' quality to it - a 'rent in twain' feel that always gets me.



The History of Middle Earth? Is that a Christopher Tolkein work Wayfriend? Sounds like it might be a history of the actual writing of TLOTR rather than an account of the past events of the place? Either way I'd be interested. I had put the tonal change, which now seems to have reverted from the elevated prose of the Council back to the previous, but still very much adult, less formal one, down to a wish to convey the venerable status of Elrond and his coterie at Rivendell. I'd certainly viewed it as entirely intentional to the purposes of the work rather than as an effect of (or evidence of) drawing chunks of text from stylistically different manuscripts, to assemble the final work? Very interesting idea though, that the actual crafting process of a major work should fed through into the work itself - and entirely obvious now you put it in those terms. Makes me consider how the editing process was approached prior to publication of the work. Was Tolkein subject to the control of an editor? Given that he seems almost to have done these works more for himself and his own entertainment than from financial need (or indeed to have been 'muse driven' to create) and that iirc his releasing the work was more to satisfy needs/demands from outside than for personal satisfaction, I wonder how much editorial control he would have tolerated. One suspects it would pretty much have been 'my way or the highway' in any conversation between him and an editorial professional attempting to influence the form in which the work was finally released.

I'm now at the bit where the Company is waiting for Gandalph to open the hidden doors to Moria and just would like to pause to ask if anyone has any observations on a couple of points. During the Council, I think Gandalph refers to Frodo's ordeal in the barrow from which Bombadil eventually rescued him as the most dangerous bit of the journey thus far. Yes , very dangerous - but am I right in thinking that there is some fundamental change that has occurred here - to Frodo or in terms of the course of events - that I have not grasped? I just saw it in terms of a small 'interim' adventure set within, but not so much significant to, the bigger story; have I missed something here? Secondly Bombadil; you have to love this kind but capricious little character, so deeply immersed and interwoven into the matrix of the Earth itself that Dark Lords and Rings of Power pass him by like the idle wind which he regardeth not! What is he! Is he the very Spirit of the Globe itself? Marvelous!

[Zarathustra]

The History of Middle Earth? Is that a Christopher Tolkein work Wayfriend? Sounds like it might be a history of the actual writing of TLOTR rather than an account of the past events of the place?

Yes, a history of the writing itself, including early drafts. Christopher did an amazing job putting it all together with commentary to note the important developments.

Makes me consider how the editing process was approached prior to publication of the work. Was Tolkein subject to the control of an editor?

If you're really interested in the process, you should get a copy of Tolkien's letters. He corresponds with friends, family, and fans, answers a lot of questions about his work. Also, you get to see what he thought of it as he wrote it.

He had a close, long lasting relationship with his publishers. I think they trusted him to write whatever he felt was best. They extended him quite a bit of leeway as it took longer and longer to complete the "Hobbit II." He sent chapters to his son as he wrote, who provided feedback, but I don't think anyone else was involved with the editing.

I just saw it in terms of a small 'interim' adventure set within, but not so much significant to, the bigger story; have I missed something here? Secondly Bombadil; you have to love this kind but capricious little character, so deeply immersed and interwoven into the matrix of the Earth itself that Dark Lords and Rings of Power pass him by like the idle wind which he regardeth not! What is he! Is he the very Spirit of the Globe itself? Marvelous!

Yeah, I didn't really think of it as a significant part of the story, either. I suppose it was very dangerous because the Hobbits were on their own and incapacitated. But I would have thought Weathertop was the most dangerous moment up to that point.

There is much speculation about Bombadil. Tolkien never really cleared it up what he was. Perhaps a Maia (angelic beings described in the Silmarillion), or perhaps the "spirit of the earth." Tolkien intentionally wanted him to be an enigma.

[Lazy Luke]

Unfinished Tales - I did wonder if this work might not be an easier in-road into the deeper history of Middle-Earth?

Mr.Bliss is an interesting read, if you ever get the chance. Not really Middle-Earth history, but could be revealing as to how 'mystery' is compiled and shaped.
For example, Mr.Bliss combines the traditional fable 'the three bears' with his own invention 'the girabbit', (a rabbit with a giraffe's neck). Much the same as, 'the man in the moon stayed up too late' (a song by Bilbo Baggins), is a blend of, 'hey diddle diddle'.

[DrPaul]

It seems to me that the Silmarillion is a hit or a miss that depends on why you liked LOTR. If it's the world building that grabs you, it's a probable hit. If it's the characters that make the story for you, or if you enjoyed Tolkien's take on little-guy-saves-world, then it's a probable miss. You can pretty much decide by asking yourself "Did I enjoy the ROTK Appendices?"

That's precisely how it was for me when I first read LOTR as an 18 year old. The world building, and the allusions to what was spatially outside Middle Earth and/or temporally prior to LOTR, really did grab me, and so I was always going to enjoy the Silmarillion.

[Avatar]

There is much speculation about Bombadil. Tolkien never really cleared it up what he was. Perhaps a Maia (angelic beings described in the Silmarillion), or perhaps the "spirit of the earth." Tolkien intentionally wanted him to be an enigma.

He always annoyed me...I was glad when the movie left him out.

--A

[peter]

Av, Av, Av! Yes, I can see how that could be - in fact I think in my first reading of the work this pertained for me as well, but this time round I began to see a depth of power, of seriousness behind his frivolity; the sense that the affairs of men were of trivial import to one such as he, concerned as it were, on the bigger story - that of 'the World' ...........and of course his kindness and joyful humility.

[peter]

Oh poor Gimli! Fresh from the elven glades of Lothlorien, how can ones heart not go out to him; swept of his feet by love for the never to be attained Galadriel, he laments his ever coming to that place for he has found his hearts desire and lost it in one brief passage. With but three strands of her hair - a treasure he would overturn kingdoms and pull down stars to protect - he must go forward, 'a light that be extinguished, were materialism true', into danger and uncertainties with that glorious memory as his one guiding light. And I think Galadriel was not herself unmoved by him.

Possibly my favourite piece in the whole tale, this is honour - this is glory!

[Cagliostro]

I read all of the Similarillion book in maybe high school, maybe college (read LOTR in grade school), and listened to the audio book of it under 5 years ago. I've really thought I missed the boat on it as so many think it has great merits, and like I said, certain tales were interesting, but I've given it two chances, and I really don't think it is for me.

[wayfriend]

(Ah, 1977 was a great year. Seeing Star Wars at the theater. Seeing Close Encounters. Waiting for the library to say it was my turn to take out The Silmarillion.)

[peter]

Now well into the second part, The Two Towers and thoroughly enjoying it. Having read another one of my favourite parts - the run of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas (that wrenching bit where Gimli {of course} jumps to defend the honour of Galadriel and is threatened by Eolair, who is immediately told by Legolas "He stands not alone - and should you raise your sword to him you will be dead ere the blow has landed", I'm now onto the march of the Ents on Isenguard. I'd got caught up in the developing story of the three companions and wasn't particularly keen on being drawn off into the story of Merry, Pippin and their travails with the Orcs. It's a measure of the quality of this part especially, that I needn't have worried; I'm now thoroughly caught up in the Ent meeting and subsequent development, and shortly before turning out the light last night, when the story moved back from the marching Ents to Aragorn and company, I felt exactly the same desire to remain in the Ent thread as I had in this one earlier! How I love The Two Towers! Surely my favourite part of TLOTR!

Very happy that I found this book for my one pound in that second hand bookstore! What a return on my investment and what a fortuitous find; without it I had no thought or plan to ever read the work again and now I discover it was exactly what I needed. Providence in action or what!

[Skyweir]

It seems to me that the Silmarillion is a hit or a miss that depends on why you liked LOTR. If it's the world building that grabs you, it's a probable hit. If it's the characters that make the story for you, or if you enjoyed Tolkien's take on little-guy-saves-world, then it's a probable miss. You can pretty much decide by asking yourself "Did I enjoy the ROTK Appendices?"

That's precisely how it was for me when I first read LOTR as an 18 year old. The world building, and the allusions to what was spatially outside Middle Earth and/or temporally prior to LOTR, really did grab me, and so I was always going to enjoy the Silmarillion.

Me too .. and I get that its not for everyone. I know so many people who set The Fellowship aside because it was too .. umm.. geographically dense. I soaked it all up as it gives so much depth and dimension to Tolkiens amazing creation.

So Pete youve read the fall of Borimir. I wept buckets. I even wept when I read it to my children.. that whole part is so powerfully written.

What a great idea to follow each read with each movie.

I like to cycle through LOTRs relatively regularly. There are some books I would not be able to do this with but LOTRs is one of them for me.

Enjoy

[Zarathustra]

I'd got caught up in the developing story of the three companions and wasn't particularly keen on being drawn off into the story of Merry, Pippin and their travails with the Orcs. It's a measure of the quality of this part especially, that I needn't have worried; I'm now thoroughly caught up in the Ent meeting and subsequent development, and shortly before turning out the light last night, when the story moved back from the marching Ents to Aragorn and company, I felt exactly the same desire to remain in the Ent thread as I had in this one earlier! How I love The Two Towers! Surely my favourite part of TLOTR!

I feel exactly the same about this part of the "trilogy." It really becomes something new, narratively speaking, with the Two Towers. It's like the first time we get chapters from Hile Troy's perspective instead of Covenant--you feel that the ground has shifted under your feet and the whole world reorients to take on a larger scope. The story itself change change hands? We as readers must pick up our attention from here and take it over there? Whoa. It's not only jarring for how it pulls you out of an interesting story line you'd like to follow, but because you begin to sense that things are speeding up, getting too complex and significant to be contained within one narrative thread. Even as the story picks up pace, we're forced to slow down and backtrack over and over, going "back in time" each time we switch perspectives. This is just the beginning. We do it all over again with an even more gut-wrenching change of perspective in the second half of the book with Frodo and Sam.

I think this is the Two Tower's genius. Tolkien didn't shy away from violating the tight, Hobbit-centric focus of Fellowship. He just followed the story where it needed to go, and dared readers to follow. The Breaking of the Fellowship broke up much more than a group of travelers, it broke up a narrative focus and splintered millions of readers' minds into an epic ecstasy of conflict and resolution.

I wish the movie had done this part justice.

[peter]

I'd got caught up in the developing story of the three companions and wasn't particularly keen on being drawn off into the story of Merry, Pippin and their travails with the Orcs. It's a measure of the quality of this part especially, that I needn't have worried; I'm now thoroughly caught up in the Ent meeting and subsequent development, and shortly before turning out the light last night, when the story moved back from the marching Ents to Aragorn and company, I felt exactly the same desire to remain in the Ent thread as I had in this one earlier! How I love The Two Towers! Surely my favourite part of TLOTR!

I feel exactly the same about this part of the "trilogy." It really becomes something new, narratively speaking, with the Two Towers. It's like the first time we get chapters from Hile Troy's perspective instead of Covenant--you feel that the ground has shifted under your feet and the whole world reorients to take on a larger scope. The story itself change change hands? We as readers must pick up our attention from here and take it over there? Whoa. It's not only jarring for how it pulls you out of an interesting story line you'd like to follow, but because you begin to sense that things are speeding up, getting too complex and significant to be contained within one narrative thread. Even as the story picks up pace, we're forced to slow down and backtrack over and over, going "back in time" each time we switch perspectives. This is just the beginning. We do it all over again with an even more gut-wrenching change of perspective in the second half of the book with Frodo and Sam.

I think this is the Two Tower's genius. Tolkien didn't shy away from violating the tight, Hobbit-centric focus of Fellowship. He just followed the story where it needed to go, and dared readers to follow. The Breaking of the Fellowship broke up much more than a group of travelers, it broke up a narrative focus and splintered millions of readers' minds into an epic ecstasy of conflict and resolution.

I wish the movie had done this part justice.

Your post captures exactly the sensations and realisations that I experienced last night on my reading Z; I covered the ground between the entry of the trio into Fanghorn through to the early stages of the struggle for Helms Deep. Suddenly the book is bigger - Rohan is in there, the armies are mustering and your perspective is pulled from a narrow focus to a wide. The description of the terrain itself is complicit in this; horses running over stepes of grass, the Rohirrhim clearly mirroring the society and lifestyle of the horse lords of central Asia. I seem a lifetime away from the fall of Boromir, so much has the emphasis and perspective changed.

[Avatar]

...and your perspective is pulled from a narrow focus to a wide.

Yeah, I felt this especially strongly, this change of focus from the small band of travellers in Fellowship, to the wider world in the Two Towers.

--A

[Lazy Luke]

Yeah, I felt this especially strongly, this change of focus from the small band of travellers in Fellowship, to the wider world in the Two Towers.

--A

Yeah me too, though maybe not the same way exactly. From thinking about who was the Lord of the Rings (Sauron or Frodo), to what Tolkien had to say about time.

Looking at tree ring growth, it's interesting to see how the rings of a tree are not always the same width from year to year. Unlike say the cocculinoidea deepwater limpet shell that has growth patterns more precise and uniform.
Leading one to wonder about the tides of the sea being almost mechanical in nature compared to the climate of the land.

Is the passage of time therefore differant on land than in the sea - as an adult seems to a child? And what might happen if the one ring were real and one were to possess such a thing!

[Vader]

I wrote my thesis on "Worldview and Philosophy in Tolkien's Fantasy Literature" and I found a corellation of the "Awakening of Elves" in the First Age and their journey towards the Godly West and Platon's Cave Allegory. Also I elaborated on the idea, that, Frodo, Gandalf and Aragon resembled the three aspects of Jesus Christ - the Sufferer, the one with supernatural Powers and the King in disguise. This sort of trinity makes perfect sense, considering Tolkien was a Catholic.

[Lazy Luke]

Frodo's journey does resemble Christ's road to Calvary, no doubt. As Frodo also shares similair traits with Covenant, saviour of the Land.
We may even see Old Man Willow and the Forestal of the Deep as one and the same!