So I finally finish my J. R. R. Tolkien re read...

[dweomeroflight]

I've done it! Read The Hobbit, LOTR and The Silmarillion in a row.

Reviews (ish) under cut link (well these are re-reads):



I can't even remember the first time I read The Hobbit. I would have been quite small. It was one of the first ever "big" books I read by myself without help and I remember loving it alot.

Good thing is: I still do. I actually think I like Tolkien's writing style best in The Hobbit, especially the intrusive narrator and the voice of Bilbo Baggins. It's a lovely little fantasy adventure and hobbits are such a lovely invention. I also love that Tolkien's love for music shows through even here: who could ever forget "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates... so carefully, carefully with the plates." If you take that out of the movie Jackson, I kill you

I also liked the hints of things that were to come. The ring of course is the obvious thing, but also the references to Thorin's family, in particular his father who had to be rescued from Sauron's secret hideaway in Mirkwood in order to get the dragon's map. That is one of the only times the Gandalf we come to know later shines through in The Hobbit. Most of the time he is mysterious, eccentric and really quite annoying. I also found it interesting in my appendices of LOTR that the reason for getting rid of Smaug was to preempt Sauron rising again, and freeing up land for "the good people" to muster troops without an evil dragon in their midst who would support Sauron.

I really loved the reference to Bilbo becoming more Tookish throughout his adventure, and the elves and dwarves realisation that hobbits were tougher, hardier, more honest and noble than they had first thought. Bilbo goes home never to be respectable again but it was worth it... perhaps going overseas for an extended period of time made me appreciate this more than usual, but I felt that in the case of both Bilbo and Frodo's journey's, I understood the emptiness of the homecoming more now than I ever did.



Onwards to LOTR- I also watched all three movies just to be thorough because I'm weird like that also they are amazing movies



On the topic of the novel... two things stood out for me on a re read.

The first was that The Fellowship of the Rings felt like it was written differently to the other two books- the other two started getting very high falutin with many "lo's" and "behold's" etc I also felt like it's pacing was better as the range of landscapes and people's was more evenly spread out. I know that LOTR is the story of the rising of the Age of Men, but it is the hobbits and the elves who interested me most. This is also perhaps, what gives LOTR its lasting emotional resonance... the knowledge that you are reading about the vestiges of a dying world; in all of its splendour, despair and great beauty and tragedy. That is the saddest part of all of LOTR for me; the knowledge that Frodo cannot go on after he completes this task, and nor can the elves whom he and Bilbo love so much. Poor Sam doesn't realise this till it is too late.

I think that in many ways the films captured this despair better than in the book. Arwen, for example, is given a proper story, rather than a mere appendices at the back and we all know that she will fade and become mortal and suffer for her love of Aragorn. Galadrial must pass the ultimate test- give in to power, not for powers sake, but to survive (as Mab tried to do to no avail in Merlin) or fade away. I love Cate Blanchett's role in this. The sadness and the weight of her wise years as she says softly "I have passed the test. I shall go into the West and remian Galadrial," gets me every single time. But it is the strong performances of the two central hobbits that pushes the terrible weight of sadness home the most in The Return of the King. The Shire was saved, but not for Sam's Frodo. "How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on... when in your heart you begin to understand, there is no going back." As a returned traveller I understand this. How do you explain to people, "I went here, I did these deeds, I did these many things" and paint a picture in words that they can understand? You cannot. Not ever.

The other thing I noticed was the amount of song and poem in the books. The first book, again, had more than the last two and perhaps this is because the first one was slightly lighter (at least at first) than the other two. I loved Merry and Pippin's bath tub song, The Road Goes Ever on and on (of course) and the many elven songs. People who know something about me will already know that I am a music nut... I believe not just in the power of words, but in the power of song. Songs can be joyous and celebratory, solmen and severe, heartbreaking and sad; used to celebrate weddings and to mourn at funerals, but always to bring people collectively together. Tolkien understood this. The hobbits have a song for every occassion and though they may have seemed to the High to be simple folk, it was their quiet resilience that won out in the end. Music is a form of expression and in times of great joy, great despair or great grief, it helped people pull through. I love that Tolkien acknowledged that.

In the film, there is obviously a different use of music in that what is used is a composed musical score. It is a very good one. I own all three cd's and Howard Shore does an amazing job of recreating scenes and emotions but there was no way he could have really incoporated the original poems and songs regularly into film without making the film a bit of a joke. There is one scene however, in Return of the King that was used to great effect. It is one of the most disturbingly memorable scenes I have ever seen in a film before. Faramir has been commanded to ride to a suicidal death with his men at Osgiliath as Denethor asks Pippin for a song of the Shire; of simple folk and simple times, to while away the time as his son goes to his death. The juxtoposition of Pippin singing against Farmir and his men riding into death is awful and yet somehow achingly beautiful too. It is one of my favourite scenes in the entire franchise.

Home is behind, the world ahead,
And there are many paths to tread,
Through shadow to the edge of night,
Until the stars are all alight.
Mist and shadow, Cloud and shade
All shall fade,
all shall fade.

This is actually taken from The Fellowship of the Ring and Merry and Pippin's walking song. It sat well here though imo.

I love both the books and the films. I think they are both brilliant in different ways and each succeeds in bringing out something special of Tolkien's vision.



The Silmarillion tells the tale of the First and Second Age and is a rather hard read. I saw it as more of an appendices to LOTR and The Hobbit than a book in its own right.



This is really a book of mythology, written like one too, so this makes for hard reading. Was it worth it? Only if you're a die hard LOTR fan I believe as it really is quite hard to keep track of everyone and follow the thread of the story.

It is in much the same vein of LOTR however. It is the story of a world corrupted from its creation; of a world always tainted, always a shadow of what it truly could have been. It is the story of great humility and great hubris; of greed and love and friendship. It is the story of a world already failing, already fading, long before the Ring of Power is discovered.



But the most powerful part of this story for me was always that of The Hobbit's. To quote Galadrial "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." A good moral. A good moral indeed.

Have you read any of these? Or seen the movies? What did you think?

Comments

[bardingtide.livejournal.com]

I've read all of them.

But I've only read the Sil once. That was enough

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

But I've only read the Sil once. That was enough

Enough for me too I think.

[cianthecat.livejournal.com]

I haven't read it yet, just the others, a long time ago. I always loved The Hobbit best.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

CAROLLLL *IS EXCITED* GRINS AND DANCES HAPPILY

I don't blame you! The Hobbit is great fun and really much easier to read in terms of authorial style imo

[squint13.livejournal.com]

I need to read these. I think I read the first book some years ago though not sure, but I definitely read the second. All I can remember are the trees, though, so *shrug* It was after I went to see the first movie in the cinema with a friend, which might explain why I may have read the second like that XD

Gonna have to wait til some other time though, so much to do now, ugh >.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

It's a hard read but it's worth it imo especially if you are a fantasy reader :)

[the-silverdoe.livejournal.com]

I have a big love for LotR, I'll probably re-read the books when I'm done with ASoIaF. Tolkien's universe and writing gave me more emotions than most of the books I've read.

But oh! how I hate Arwen's development in the movies. In fact I hate everything that they changed in the movies, but Arwen and Elrond in particular - nothing needed to be changed imo. The ending was too 'American' for me also, I prefer the ending in the books.
I love the Hobbit too, it brings me back to my childhood everytime, but I prefer the writing in LotR. I've never been able to read the Silmarillion. I could never go past the Feanor bits, I don't know why, it's a hard read indeed, probably because Tolkien died before he could finish it himself. I'll give it another try, someday.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

Really? I loved Arwen's developement in the movies and especially in relation to Elrond. She got like three sentences in the books. I felt that the inclusion of that storyline in the movies brought home the terrible tragedy of the elves better than the actual books did.

I thought the ending was exactly the same, albeit slightly shorter as they cut out the scouring of the shire for the film :/

[the-silverdoe.livejournal.com]

I hate Elrond in the movies, he's just so not Elrond to me! And Liv Tyler's acting is not how I picture Arwen, so... If I remember well, Elrond is not so agressive about Arwen's decision in the books, and in the movies Arwen has scenes that don't even exist in the books. I can't see the point of all that.
In my mind the tragedy of the elves is more apparent with Galadriel than with Arwen and Elrond, so I really don't see the point of them having so much screen time.

The ending is pretty much the same indeed, but I wish the 'let's hug each other and cry' sequence between the Hobbits was shorter, and it would have been nice to have a bit of the scouring of the Shire, as it's a nice sequence in the books, and it makes more sense than them coming back to an untouched Shire.

But all in all I love the movies, don't get me wrong! :)

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

I love Hugo Weaving. But I am Australian and therefore biased. Elrond is actually aggressive about Arwen's decision- it is in an appendices at the back of the book (I can't for the life of me figure out why Tolkien did it like that but I have the official book version as stamped and approved by his son so eh?) Arwen's scenes in the books are actually word for word what happens in the appendices, give or take room for film over words.

I never had a problem with Liv as Arwen was two sentences in the book and therefore a write off for me.

You can see the scouring of the shire (they did film it but it was cut to shorten the movie)- it is on the extended dvd version.

I don't know. The ending didn't bother me. The book was just as long and never ending.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

Quotes from the Appendices;

Elrond after seeing that Aragorn loves his daughter: "But there will be no choice between Arwen, my beloved, unless you, Aragorn, Arathorn's son, come between us and bring one of us, you or me, to a bitter parting beyond the end of the world."

(In Rivendell): Arwen: Dark is the shadow, and yet my heart rejoices, for you, Estel, shall be among the great whose valour shall destroy it.
Aragorn: Alas! I cannot see it.

Aragorn's mother: I gave my hope to the Dunedain, I left none for myself (said in elvish- in the film they made Arwen say this to be economical with characters I am assuming)

There is a passage where Elrond tells Aragorn that he shall only have Arwen if he becomes a great king among men for he shall give Arwen to no other. Too long to type but they had something similar in the movie.

The rest is narration but in a film they turned it into dialogue for either Aragorn, Elrond or Arwen. Elrond is less aggresive in the appendices it is true, but I like it better. I think it is more realistic for Elrond, as a father, to be upset with Arwen because he has the sight, and he knows that her fade it to renounce both human death and immortality, and that when Aragorn dies, she will wonder alone until time has mercy on her.

That is a pretty awful fate and I think it is one of the saddest aspects of LOTR, both in the books and film.

[the-silverdoe.livejournal.com]

The scouring of the Shire? Where? I have the extended version and it's still not here...

I read Aragorn and Arwen's story in the appendices several times and it always leaves me in such a state of sadness... Just the thought of Arwen wandering alone after Aragorn's death makes me want to cry.:(
I remember Elrond's behaviour in the appendices, but it just makes more sense to me there (in terms of how Tolkien describes Elrond's character in the book) than in the movies with the aggressive, bitter portrayal of Elrond by Weaving. It's just anti-Elrond to me.

I know part of the scenes were from the appendices; but I always thought some bits were altered between the appendices and the movies (it's been a while, I need to re-watch and re-read) and anyway it was the way they were directed and acted and written that just felt wrong to me. In the book Arwen never leaves and then comes back in that theatrical manner, right? I don't know, it just buggs me, I tend to skip those scenes when I re-watch.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

No she doesn't. But for me, that is one of the saddest moments in the entire series and I love it alot.

I guess the thing is, I am not a LOTR book puritan, and that in the case of Arwen and Aragorn, Jackson actually got to the heart of the despair theme better than Tolkien did imo. Tolkien's language was always so passive and distant, hence, so were his characters sometimes.

The Elrond of the films is more real to me and so is Arwen. I think the film version is far sadder than the appendices version.

I don't know. I just know a friend of mine has the extended version of the return of the king and it is on there. There are multiple versions though and I have no idea which one she has. It could be a special feature? I am sure it is part of the film though and it goes for like four hours XD

ps: off to watch spooks 10.3 now. I am a terrible person. I chose to watch No 1 Ladies Detective Agency over Spooks last night.

[the-silverdoe.livejournal.com]

Ah well I guess I'm a puritan, and I certainly don't like that at some point Jackson seems to have believed that he understood Tolkien's universe better than Tolkien himself did.
I like Tolkien's language and I relate to the characters more easily in the books so...

So jealous that you got to see the scouring!! *need to find it* =P

Ah, enjoy Spooks then! Or don't. I did, but not all of it so I'll be interested in reading your thoughts. ;)

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

Ah well I guess I'm a puritan, and I certainly don't like that at some point Jackson seems to have believed that he understood Tolkien's universe better than Tolkien himself did.

lol isn't that the anti fan ficcer's argument? I'm with Pullman, an author cannot pick and choose and force what a reader gets from their text. That is the whole point of "the democracy of reading." If Jackson got Arwen as being something important he has every right to put it in the film as the director, just as if you were the film-maker you would have had every right to choose something else. Tolkien as the author has no control over that. Nor do I believe he/authors should/can.

I disliked Tolkien's deliberate footnoting of women in LOTR. I liked that in this day and age Jackson chose not to go along with that and give women a bigger role in the film.

[the-silverdoe.livejournal.com]

isn't that the anti fan ficcer's argument?
No, I don't think it is. I write fanfiction about 'missing scenes' or, in the case of TV, meta fic about the lack of coherence, but I don't like fanfic writers who 'reboot' the canon, like they understood what the writer meant and the writer, stupid as he/she is, didn't. I'm not saying Jackson rebooted the canon here, but he forced his interpretation on the viewer. Which is great if you share his interpretation, but as I don't like the way he did it, it annoys me.
In the case of adaptation, I don't like it when screenwriters/directors specify an interpretation of the original text, because the readers who didn't see the same things are denied their interpretation in the adaptation. That's why I'm for adaptations that stick to canon as much as possible, so that everybody can still interprete the story in their own way.

I disliked Tolkien's deliberate footnoting of women in LOTR.
I don't think Eowyn or Galadriel are footnotes... Maybe Arwen is a small character in LotR because that's what she was meant to be. I don't know, tbh I think I'm biased because I don't like the way Jackson did it and I don't like Liv Tyler. Take a different actress and write the scenes differently and maybe I'd be in love with this storyline, so 'joker' on that. I don't give as strong opinions as I used to, because now I find that small details can change your whole perception or something. I was probably annoyed by Tyler and Weaving more than anything else. That and the fact that I felt it was done for a commercial purpose: let's show more of the pretty lady/actress of the moment. I was equally annoyed at the scene in HP6 when they burned the Burrow just to show Bellatrix. I like HBC, but it wasn't in the book!

[alt_universe_me.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm amazed that anyone can reread these! I read these all so many years ago, and while I loved them, I wound up crying so much at the end that I'm not sure I want to relive that all :) I get what you mean about the despair, but honestly I always thought it was handled well in the books. Although, since there was a big gap of time between when I read the books and when I watched the films, perhaps I'm not making a fair comparison.
Man, thinking about this is giving me some major nostalgia. LOTR is always going to have a place in my heart, I think. :)

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

It always will have a place in mine too :)

And I agree the books did it well, but for me the films enhanced that theme so I noticed it more in the book on rereads. A great achievement imo.

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Yes, read LotR and The Hobbit numerous times and seen the movies. And yes, I love them, despite all the flaws that I didn't notice first or even third time around. I didn't, however, enjoy The Silmarillion, because it doesn't, as you point out, read like a novel.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

The Silmarillion was so hard to get through :/

Did you like the films too? Some people really didn't but I felt they reflected the books well :)

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I adored the films. I was sad that they had no space for Tom Bombadil and other odds and ends but am aware that films can't reproduce books exactly. I am in two minds about Arwen's story because I suspect it was put in to give a romance element for box office purposes. To that extent, whilst not objectionable in itself, it was a little intrusive and took time they could have given to other things. However, I thought the bulk of the story was faithfully adapted, and I loved the various backgrounds, graphics, etc. I adored the architecture of Rivendell, the amazing semi-3D orc mines and the way the cities and towers were depicted. The way they did Gollum was fantastic. My husband is a very keen photographer and film buff so I have been 'trained' to watch films for their technical excellence... ;) We saw them at the cinema and have bought the DVDs to rewatch on our large screen with our DVD projector. Haven't, as yet, had time but we definitely will!

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

re the Arwen romance. It wasn't. It's in an appendices at the back of Return of the King as part V of Appendix A 'Here follows a part of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn' written by Tolkien and intended to be included with every copy.

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do know that - I read appendices as avidly as books themselves - but it still wasn't part of the main book and as such felt intrusive to me. If they had room for Arwen they had room for Tom...so there was a decision to go with the romance element, which is slightly out of kilter with the original work. Tolkien uses women as footnotes and afterthoughts or lets them dress up and pretend to be men... So it was directed at movie-goers, not people in love with the books.

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

Ah I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that the romance wasn't meant to be there at all. Sorry!

Hmm I see what you mean now I reread your comment. For me though, Tom Bombadil always felt rather random in the book and so I didn't really miss him. I thought that the Arwen/Aragorn thing intergrated throughout the films well but that's just me.

Also, I prefer women who are more than just footnotes *puts self firmly in catogary of movie goer here* and I always found the absence of women in LOTR to be rather annoying. I'm not really a LOTR puritan I suppose. The things the films changed, I felt were often for the better.

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean.

I don't think I'm exactly a puritan but Tolkien was such an important writer in the fantasy field that I'd have liked the wider public to get a more exact idea of what he was and wasn't, perhaps. In the BBC's 100 best books he came overwhelmingly top and he founded modern fantasy in some respects. I didn't find Bombadil or Goldberry random - I thought they added to the world building, which Arwen doesn't, really. (If you have read the long essay he wrote in Tree and Leaf you will know what I mean.) Don't get me wrong - I'm happy about Arwen and her story, just not totally sure it should have been handled the way it was. But I love the books and the movies, so I'm not complaining at all.

I'm also in favour of women who are not footnotes but Tolkien wasn't... It's a little bit like altering Shakespeare to make it more appropriate for the classroom, in a way. Tolkien didn't write a romance in the 'true love' sense of the word, and yet millions of people fell under the spell of the 'high' romance/adventure. I'm not sure bringing forward an obscure part of the story was altogether right, but as I've already said, I'm not complaining too much - just a bit niggled *g*

[brendanpodger.livejournal.com]

The Silmarillion is a dry read but I love it anyway. I especially love the creation myth that starts it. Can't you imagine the celestial chior and the clashing motifs, the new themes introduced and the final heavenly music that swells and lifts you, resounding through the universe, filling your soul.

Best Creation story EVER!

[dweomeroflight.livejournal.com]

You're asking me Brendan? The girl who always goes on about the power of music EVERYWHERE. Yes, I can imagine. As a person who has played music for a number of years and loves musicals to bits, I understand the glorious power of music.

Collective music courses right through you and binds you all together. I love it.