- thanks
4 days 18 hours ago - great article!
4 days 18 hours ago - ilateral hernia operation and
1 week 6 days ago - nice informations becaouse u
1 week 6 days ago - A sudan man has been forces
1 week 6 days ago - Porn
8 weeks 2 days ago - This site is so
8 weeks 3 days ago - Nice photos and your site is
8 weeks 3 days ago - Discounted UK Tiffany
11 weeks 3 days ago - dder ujhnuj Juicy Couture
12 weeks 5 days ago
LotR
First and foremost--there are those who like the books, and those who don't. Usually those who read the books first, and when they are children, are mostly hooked for life--the descriptions of the land are precisely why these books are so good, or at least a good part of it.
The glory of LOTR is the DETAIL into which Tolkien goes in describing his wonderful fantasy. It lies entirely in being able to fall headlong into the books and completely let go. It is THE Escapist book. The languages, all 14 of them, the cultures, the story-line, the background (which is the Silmarillion which you would consider even worse) all of that make for the most complete artwork of a world ever. Tolkien was not only the first, but he was by far the best. He is the one who told us by example, that ACTION is not what makes a book good. Action is not what makes a movie good. It is the storyline, the deep and passionate, long-forgotten storyline that makes these novels worth it. Why write three novels (which are really just the tip of the iceberg) about a bunch of people continually hitting each other?
I hope that you figure out that there's more to literature and film than the action sequences. The Green Mile was an awesome movie--the English Patient is a really good movie, the Thin Red Line, (Especially juxtaposed to SPR) is a really good movie. Now, I'm not saying that something like Saving Private Ryan is not a good movie-but with the amount of violence in it, it is CERTAINLY the EXCEPTION, and that is attributable to the cast, and the director, and the STORYLINE.
That's my perspective. Of course, at 21, I just may be an old relic, or at best, part of a dying breed of people who appreciate a little mental stimulation when I am at play, instead of the Two Minutes Adrenaline of a movie. Ever notice how no one does any hype about a book? That's cause it takes someone with a bit of patience to read it. And in this society where images are flashed at us approximately once every half second from more than one direction....
Have you ever noticed how no screen shot that isn't a pan doesn't last more than ten seconds in an action film, where as something in the Pelican Brief, for instace, can have extended pauses where no one might even speak? I have to stop ranting before I lose myself in it.
Raven
Comments
I hear what you're saying, and I almost agree with you. I've read my share of fantasy/sci-fi, so I'm relatively well-read in the genre. I found that the descriptions of the land are the exact thing that detracted from the story. You comment that "I hope that you figure out that there's more to literature and film than the action sequences", and at first I found it incredibly insulting, but I realize that may be how I came off originally, as some unappreciative gen-x slob with whatever attention defecit disorder is fashionable these days. Now, slob I may be, little too old for gen-x (25), but I can appreciate the hell out of good writing. And while Tolkien was good at writing descriptions and landscape, I feel he missed his calling. He would have excelled at writing travel books and the like.
As to non-action packed movies/books? 2001 and Contact (except for the ending) are actually some of my favorite movies, and if there is a slower moving movie, I'd like to see them. Well, other than Eraserhead, that movie breaks all the rules. I've read all of Stephen R Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant" and Frank Herbert's "Dune" books, both of which rival Tolkien for sheer verbiage, much of which is tiresome, but they both had a good story behind them. I'm sorry, but LotR had the MOST basic, 2 dimensional characters I've ever seen. The only person who grows at all is Frodo. Maybe Sam. And neither in a way that wasn't predictable from the very beginning. The other characters have no development whatsoever. Hell, this parody has more character development http//home.nyu.edu/~amw243/diaries/ .
And the thing about it...the thing that really burns me is, I wanted to like these books. I mean, I really wanted to. I tried. But the fact that the SAME story could have been told in one book shows just how much filler is there. I can understand that not all books are going to have a frenetic pace to them, but as you said, 14 languages? Who cares? It actually doesn't add to the book at all that he decided to create 14 languages for his books, it shows he's way too pedantic and full of himself. As opposed to saying, "And they spoke in their native tongue, the language of the Elves," he says "They said, 'sim sala bim rama rama ding dong' and that is the language of the elves. No, really, I created this language. See? I'm writing in it right now!" Thank $DIETY Peter Jackson came along to make this a decent story. I think this has to be the first time I've thought a movie to be better than the books. Yeesh.
If we're all chum, I'm definitely one of the chunky bits.
Far be it from me to get involved in the arguments of great thinkers...
*grins*
but I felt a need to correct a point here... actual gen-x'rs are in their mid-to-late 30's right now, so all of us are actually too young to be considered generation x. We are what I like to call 'the Pepsi generation'. I don't know why I call it that, but I have been calling it that for about 5 years now, so I'm not going to change.
As to Tolkien...oddly enough, I feel the exact way that you do, Spaz, but only concerning The Hobbit. Lord of the Rings read in a completely different way for me. It was captivating and terrifying to me, when I first read it, in a way that The Hobbit never could be. So perhaps you need the comparison of the two to appreciate the artistry of the trilogy?
And forgive me, Master, but I have to once again voice my opinion that The Silmarillion is not a book so much as a very dry history textbook. You know I love Tolkien, but his son isn't really the storyteller that he was.
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Spazholio! I'm sorry! Through my rage of hearing LOTR torn down, I automatically assumed the worst of you! Must....stop...pre-judging...
Please accept my apologies for what was in all honesty *intended* to be an insult. /
In any event, I actually kind of agree about the character development. The problem is, is that the characters by this time have already developed, and they've all chosen their roles and their sides. Gandalf does do a bit of developing, but that's more of a intense change brought on by, well, battling a Major Demon in what must have been the space between the worlds of Aman and Middle-Earth, and dying in the process. Of course when he's reincarnated (Being a Maia and all) he's going to go through a bit of changing, having been blest anew by Manwe and Nienna and the like.
In any event, if you want Character Development, read the Silmarillion. Unfortunately, ambrosia *is* right about it, I'm simply compeletely psycho to love such a book. But hey, I can admit it.
The reasons that I love the movies is that, like the Harry Potter movies, they flesh out what I imagined, they give form to the various intangibles like the balrog which was before the film only just some form of evil, and that was that. Yeah, I like the fleshing out bit, and I really really need something to replace the Bakshi version. Oh, the humanity!
Again, my apologies for my presumption--but can you blame me? It's not like stupid trivial people are few and far between...
Raven
Some people are like slinkies: Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Is someone talking about David Lynch's 'Ereaserhead'? I'm not the only guy who saw that movie? Really? That was mysteriously frightening!
Gandalf and the Hobbit I know too... But only because I played heavily that adventure game on my venerable Sinclair (Timex) Spectrum 48K sooo long ago... That was intriguing and addictive!
plop Yeah, I saw that, but I was too young. I need to see it again because even though I was too young at the time, I could still recognize that it was something intense. That, and David Lynch is great. If you fully understand one of his movies the first time around, you've completely missed the point.
Raven No big deal. Although I do have someone sitting here wondering where you got that Gandalf was Maia. Was that Tolkien gospel or something that was more from his kid or fanfiction? Oh wait, he's like Dr. Who, right? They're both british, so that means when they both die, the both come back to life, only the Doctor changes bodies, and Gandalf changes clothes? Damn, I wish I were british...
If we're all chum, I'm definitely one of the chunky bits.
Ah ha.
Read the Silmarillion. Gandalf is a maia called Olórin in the Realm of the Vala, and, incidentally, the Balrogs are all maia who were seduced by Melkor's persuasions. Actually, the story is really Paradise Lost all over again, but with quirks.
So, Gandalf the Grey, later the White, as far as I can remember, and that's not very well at the moment, see my next topic, is a maia, one of the Istari, the Five wizards, who was a maia associated with Nienna, the wife of Mandos. Cúrunir (accent on the second?), aka Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown (I can't remember his actual name in Aman) and two Blue Wizards, Alatar and one other were the Istari.
Go on, ask me more. ) There's a ridiculous amount of information and context in the Silmarillion.
Raven
Some people are like slinkies: Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
TWO DAYS!!!!!!!!!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm watching 3.5 hours of FOTR today with my wonderful slave and THAT should be interesting. We haven't seen each other in about a month and a half--not a really long time, but long enough.
I think I'll be able to control myself enough to torment poor ambrosia, though, even through FOTR. *chuckles*
Raven
Some people are like slinkies: Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
x
Edited by - synthetic on Dec 20 2002 70830 PM
You know, That's something I have often wondered myself---what the bloody hell do the Eldar *do* during the twenty thousand years or so that they've been alive? The books contain no mention of elvish children, EVER, at least not when they're still children. I kind of wonder if they hatch out of eggs full grown like that Uruk-Hai in FOTR, only a little more illumined and less mucky.
But the nearest I can come is that technology is something that is hated by Tolkien--technology is the backbone and corrupting force behind every evil force in Ea--be it Aman, Beleriand, or Ossiriand. The advancement that the cultures seem to make seem to be in wisdom of the environment, leechcraft, herbology, etc... The more you know about the creation of Ea itself, the wiser and more potent you become.
Also--without the influence of Morgoth Bauglir or any other type of negative force, the world exists in a state of blissful almost perfection, the only imperfections being that Morgoth et all have marred it in the past, and repairing that marring is foremost in the Valar, Maiar, Elder and Edain's minds.
Perfection, as we all know, is stagnation. The only problem with that is that Mankind with their mortality is very NOT suited to stagnation of any type. We are driven by the knowledge of our looming mortality to change and effect change--so the cultures of Numenor, for instance, though their lives are prolonged make little sense. Of course, they only had 39 kings or so before the Eru Iluvatar sank the island...so assuming their lifespans to be increased (though waning more and more as their corruption waxes) and thus the need to progress is lessened...the advancements that that culture made do seem to be a little more consistent.
Take also into account that hardly 1000 years can pass before some massive catastrophe occurs, whether it be the Dagor Bragollach, or the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, (both huge offensives of Morgoth) or the War of Wrath (in which half of the land, the entirety of Beleriand was sunk) or the destruction of Numenor (the elimination of the source of almost all human advancement, easily, considering the correspondences of Tolkien, comparable to Atlantis) it's not surprising that the technological and cultural state of the world at large has remained pretty much unchanged.
In short, the Eldar do not need to change, the Edain cannot survive long enough to effect any lasting change before it's all wiped out by some apocalypse, and the rest are all rustic folk who seem to not exist until the story gets back to them )
Some people are like slinkies: Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Only just looked at this thread. LOTR2 comes out on Thursday here in Italy so I watched the DVD last week to prepare myself.
I've read the trilogy 3 or 4 times now and the one observation I wanted to make, getting back to Spazholio's original posting and his main criticisms, is that you must remember Tolkein is the starting point for all those other fantasy books you've read, he launched the genre. A movement grows and (hopefully) improves. This is certainly the case with Fantasy (and SciFi).
Just because contemporary authors are concentrating on complex plots and rounder characters, doesn't mean that the guy who started it all was crap.
His worlds are part of our collective unconscious NOW. But when he created them no-one had seen Neverending Story or Labyrinth or Yes' album covers. So he had to describe them in detail. The modern fantasy writer gets has it easy and with a couple of sentences he can rely on the reader to pad out the details.
Writing fantasy has got to be like writing a historical novel - if you set your story in Roman Britain there's no need to describe the centurion's costume down to his belt buckle because we all know what centurions wore. We've seen them in school-books and Hollywood films since we were kids. But Tolkein had no reference points to link on to collective images like this, he had to describe it all just to set the scene.
a man with three buttocks
LotR
Ok, I may have to burn my geek membership card and cancel my Caffeine-of-the-Month subscription for saying this, but does anyone else think that LotR is awful? I mean, really, REALLY bad? Not the movies, mind you. I'm talking about the books. I personally feel that Peter Jackson has done a great job taking those books and making something enjoyable out of them.
Now, I did see the movie first before reading the book, so my perception may be slightly skewed. Slightly. The first book would have been no more than a novella, had all the descriptions of the landscape been removed. They were relatively pointless, and went on and on. If I want to read that, I'd read "Walden". The second book pretty much had two action sequences and little else. And the third book was the biggest letdown. Tolkien has a chance to pull it all together, and redeem himself for his past mistakes, and he comes SO close. But then he ruins it. Events that should be given great importance are glazed over, and the book goes on WAAAY longer than it should.
I understand why he is held in such high esteem, because he did it first. Or one of the first to do it. But that doesn't mean he's any good at it. Anyway, enough of me ranting. Anyone else here feel the same? Differently?
If we're all chum, I'm definitely one of the chunky bits.