BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:07 PM

Clinton, I think I read the Kay books. (If they included a religion close to Christianity and talked about the dead god who'd been nailed to a tree.) They're somewhere in the basement...along with a few thousand other books.

I think what may be remarkable about LOTR is the fact Tolkien invented an entire world in detail. Frank Herbert did the same with the Dune books, with a different approach to language. I also think Tolkien's style of writing might just have been popular at the time. A friend gave me a trilogy of very early science fiction books. I never made it through them, either. At first I thought "what a lovely way to describe a building." After two and a half pages of it, I just wanted him to quit demonstrating his ability to use adjectives and get to work on a few verbs...

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:07 PM

I was not going to get drawn at all but c'mon Clint!!!

"JRR was NOT a brilliant writer..."

I could be quoting incorrectly but I have heard that, after the Bible, the Lord of the Rings is THE best seller in the UK (Possibly the world?) The Lord of the Rings has become the definitive standard agains which all other works of fantasy are measured. Whatever anyone else thinks and however good new writers are they will always have to live up to Tolkien.

I am not an academic, or a literary critic, but the fact is that this not brilliant writer has captured the imagination of the world. The movie will be the huge box office success that it deserves and, hopefully, people who would have never seen the world the Tolkien created will now have their imaginations widened.

Lets not be highbrow about this. Good is good. I agree that his best literary work was in the academic essays. The work and logic put into Leaf by Niggle and the essay leading to it was indeed a masterpiece but it did not feed the Tolkien family. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings did.

If I may put it a little bluntly. Those that can write sell books. Those that cannot, critisise. Or another way. Dave the Gnome, Clinton Hammond and the rest of us - Nil. JRR Tolkien - Four.

Who is the winner???

Let the journey envelop you. Enjoy it for what it is. A good yarn, a splendid saga, a wonderful story. Don't worry about the missing bits. Fill them in yourself. Don't expect the writer to have to explain everything.

Enjoy filling in the blanks as much as I did;-)

Cheers

Dave the Gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:23 PM

Bingo, Desdemona. Granted, Tolkien's prose certainly doesn't ring everybody's chimes, but no one can deny the depth of what he's written. I haven't counted myself, but somewhere I heard that the trilogy runs about 600,000 words (sounds about right), which is a bunch of writing. But his notes and drafts on the mythology and background of LOTR run to a couple of million words, just to keep things consistent and get all his ducks in a row. Not many writers go to that much trouble to get it right. And he's managed to keep a few battalions of scholars busy for several decades now, which is more than can be said for 99.999 percent of the writers who appear on the best-seller lists, and no one to my knowledge has ever called his scholarship into question. All of this, in addition to your son's response to the books sure says something.

Great? Well, that's a qualitative word that people can and do quibble over, but it's pretty obvious that Tolkien had something going for him. Speaking of Rings, I think the magnitude of Lord of the Rings in relation to literature is on a par with Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung in relation to Grand Opera. Monumental. Of course Wagner is not every music-lover's flagon of schnapps either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:39 PM

"everything that is truly great is also enjoyable."

poppycock!!

There is a plethora of damn good art, lit, music that leaves me absolutley cold!!!

On the other side of that coin, there are plenty of base, idle things that I quite enjoy... (hardcore porn and velvet paintings of dogs plying poker for example) My enjoyment of these things lends me no illusions that they are in any way GOOD...

"religion close to Christianity and talked about the dead god who'd been nailed to a tree"

I think the x-tians swiped it from the norse actually! LOL!!!

"THE best seller in the UK"

so is Brittany Spears! The mob consumption is NO judge of such things...

"I am not an academic"

I fancy myself one... that level of discourse is quite enjoyble... and I'm pretty sure it ws the level of discourse that JRR wanted ssociated with LOTR...

"Great? Well, that's a qualitative word that people can and do quibble over"

Thank you.. that's MY point...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:47 PM

Well...

I used to be a HUGE Clinton Hammond geek... read every one of his posts at least 6 or 8 times... then I took some classes in critical analysis at the University of Toronto, and starting learning a thing or 3 about the craft of critiquing, especially critiquing works in the speculative fiction genre... by the time I'd had the chance to study Clinton Hammond's attempts at literary criticism, well, I could see them for what they really were...

There are plenty of reasons why Clinton has never had much critical success with his postings on Lord of the Rings... And I'm forced to agree with probably 95% of his critics...

These days, I can usually get about as far as his 3rd or 4rth sentence, and then I lose ALL interest. I usually then find myself reading Spaw's latest tale about Cletus, or the phone book, or the dictionary...much more engaging!

GREAT criticism, after all, is objective, not subjective...and Clinton's attempts to critique Lord of the Rings do not by any stretch of the imagination fall under the category of GREAT criticism, but merely bargain-basement opinionating.

- LH (Evil grin!)

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:51 PM

Well I tell ya', like Jeri and Barbara, I just couldn't get into it although I did struggle through it....But here's my point......

GUEST Turnip, it don't matter a whit ta' me iffen the accents and the stuff are wrong to you 'cause I think y'all talk funny and ain't nuthin' but a bunch of furriners ta' begin with...AND...If this movie ain't got no Americans in it and a speakin' reel American, then it cain't be worth a shit no how!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 06:52 PM

*pokes LH in the eye fer being a goof!*

LOL!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 07:02 PM

Glad you got that, Clinton! :-)

Spaw - Are you trying to enlarge the concept of the "Ugly American" beyond its already downright legendary dimensions...or are you just trying to be friendly? We oughta airdrop you into a few international trouble spots when things are goin' kinda slow, just to get some action happening...

You shoulda called that GUEST a spud, not a turnip, you insensitive cretin! You owe all GUESTS a heartfelt apology, and I encourage you to get right at the keyboard now and compose one!

I'll give ya to the count of ten...

One...

Two...

Three...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 09:23 PM

Those of us in North America, of course, didn't get any particular feel that characters were English, Irish or whatever. Both my children and I enjoyed it, and I think, thought about good and evil. To us, it was a somewhat old-fashioned tale that took us out of current problems.
Is it great literature? What will the next generation think? Why worry about that. There are a few writers who transcend time.
I remember a course in English literature and our response to the Thomas Hardy novels. We thought Tess of the D'Urbervilles was bad melodrama, so bad it was funny. The instructor was young, and not long over here in America from England. He thought Hardy was a fine author and became upset, but to us the characters were cardboard.
Tolkien's creation at least has appeal throughout the English-speaking world. Will the appeal last? I don't know, but I think it will. Now I must re-read after many years to see if I still find it good.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 09:47 PM

My whole sentence was "True, not everything that is enjoyable is great, but everything that is truly great is also enjoyable." If you're going to throw my words back at me, at least get them right.

"Not everything that is enjoyable is great." E.g., Britany Spears (for those who enjoy that sort of thing). I often enjoy playing "Minesweeper" (expert level), but it's a really stupid waste of time.

"Everything that is truly great is also enjoyable." By a substantial number of people who are knowledgeable in a the field in question. I am told by those who know that Michael Jordan is a great basketball player. Basketball bores the hell out of me. But I'm not going to deny that Michael Jordan is a great basketball player.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 10:23 PM

Being great doesn't mean being perfect. Homer nodded, as they say, and so did Tolkien of course.

Books differ. Charlotte Bronte thought that Jane Austin was trivial and boring. I suspecxt that if Jane Austion had lived long enough she'd have been pretty scathin about the Brontes.

Depth of characterization of the sort that Tolkien has been criticised for lacking would have thrown the Lord of the Rings out of balance. The same would be true if the bits some people find boring weren't there.

From the point of view of critical acclaim, it would have done better if it hadn't been the enormous publishing and cultural phenomenon that it became. Getting into it and understanding it is quite difficult, skimming it and skipping the slow bits is fun, but means missing what its all about really.

I'm lucky I was able to read it before it took off, and before all the hippy trippy stuff came along and coloured the way people saw it.

Incidentally I read somewhere that Tolkien's favourite language was Finnishh - and a lot of the elven tongues do look reminiscent of Finnish. Just have a look at this random Finnish site I found through Google.

I haven't got the faintest idea what it's about, but just look at the language: "Lämpötilan ja tuulen yhteisvaikutuksen voi tarkistaa kätevästi pakkasen purevuus -taulukosta. Kaavio kuvaa ihmisen paljaalta iholta tapahtuvaa lämpöhäviötä eri lämpötilojen ja tuulennopeuksien yhdistelmillä." Doesn't that look like its a High Elf talking?P>

I supposed now I'll get accused of being a bigotted Finnish nationalist. Which is about as true as the idea that I might be "blatantly British nationalist" (or indeed British at all) because I think it's a good idea to have some English music in the film as well as Irish music.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Deckman
Date: 20 Dec 01 - 10:29 PM

To McGrath of Harlow: "Kittos". CHEERS, Bob(Roope ... deckman Nelson) And by the way, Merry Christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Hollowfox
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 12:17 AM

Now if all you pundits will stop blathering...I just saw the movie, loved it, gonna buy the video, probably gonna see it again. Perfect? I've never seen a perfect movie. What would I change? I'd re-edit the swordfighting scenes. Too many, too fast intercuts from shot to shot. Couldn't really see the skill put into choriographing the action. They developed different blade fighting styles for each of the representative groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 12:32 AM

Just got home from seeing the movie. It's excellent, very faithful to the books, marvelous characterization of the Hobbits and Elves in particular. Very appropriate music (what could be more perfect than Enya for this film?).

Some minor nitpicking...I would prefer more battle scenes that are not so mired in darkness...and so close-up...as to obscure what is actually going on...and I think more contrasts of darkness and light and color in a scene would be more effective anyway, than having 95% darkness, just to indicate evil. This is a complaint I've had about any number of movies in the last 10 or 15 years...it's a cinematic style I just don't like. Extreme examples of that style were: Batman and the new Planet of the Apes...two movies which would have been virtually invisible half the time had one been wearing even the weakest sunglasses.

But that's a very minor complaint in this case.

The Elves are absolutely magnificent...as Elves should be. Aragorn and Boromir are also very well done.

And none of the usual Hollywood nonsense. None. How the hell did that happen? (It must be a subversive plot of some kind...) :-)

Bravo.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Stu
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 05:56 AM

On the language front, there are two elven languages prominent in LOTR (book), Quenya and Sindarin.

Quenya is (I hope I get these the right way round) based on Welsh, and Sindarin on Finnish, but I'm not sure which one is spoken in the film.

Bit geeky I know, but I don't care. Love the book, love the film and love the music.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Grab
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 06:39 AM

Interestingly LH, one of my complaints is that they got soddin' Enya to do the music. Read the review of the animated version: "How to spot an elf: (a) as soon as they appear, all this pseudo-mystical music comes on; (b) they all have strangely serene smiles; and (c) they're all exposed about 3 F-stops too bright". Yeah, we need some pseudo-mystical music - let's get Enya to do something nice and trite. Marvellous. Oh and on point (c), I don't believe that when Tolkien called them "the shining people" he was talking like an Obi-Wan Kenobi's ghost glow around them! :-(

The other main complaint is that they spent too long panning around the computer-generated (or computer-enhanced) scenery from on high. Either (a) stick with the party and show it from Frodo's point of view, or (b) cut out some of it and spend the time on character development (particularly Legolas and Gimli, who don't get much of a look-in on the conversation front). The stays with Elrond and Galadriel are key character points, but they're cut rather too short. And at times the computer scenery does look a bit painted-in. Maybe even 3 hours was a little too short - another 15 minutes of dialogue would have made a real difference.

To stop picking nits though, I loved the film. I have no complaints with the changes to the plot, and all the actors were great (although Samwise's English accent slipped once or twice ;-). I presume the fight scenes were deliberately cut to make them disorientating, and I do think that worked to make it feel more realistic. It's a change from the picture-perfect fights of The Matrix and others.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 08:14 AM

Saw it. Much preferred Crouching Tiger for a million reasons, but mostly because the "mythic story" it told was done so very much better than LOTR, IMO. Also, not that "dark look" LH mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Hollowfox
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 09:07 AM

(Becoming a pundit herself for a minute) LH, if you thought the fight scenes were murky here, I bet you can't wait to see the lighting in the third movie *g*. LH & Grab, I thought it was just my glasses and sitting too close to the screen (no, I wasn't in the first three rows,*g*), but I didn't enjoy the fight scenes being so close up, and I too found it disorienting. Thanks for putting it into the right words. And I thought the problem was with my glasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 09:23 AM

Spaw,

There was a token 'ay-merrican' line uttered right at the end of the movie ...

Aragorn (decisively hitching up his longsword): "Okay! Lets go hunt us some orcs!"

he should then have one-handedly cocked his pump-action shotgun but this IS high fantasy :D

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 09:35 AM

what's more 'ay-merrican' than "No one tosses a dwarf!"

LOL!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 10:58 AM

Clinton, the one thing I'll agree with you on is that "Leaf by Niggle" is excellent, excellent, excellent! But it's of a different genre, and not to be remotely compared with the Silmarillion or with LOTR or the various Lost Tales and the Unfinished Tales. Different animal altogether.

"The Hobbit" is a nice enough little story, but I'm sure I'll never bother to read it a third time, and I sort of regretted bothering to read it the second time.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 11:31 AM

Grab - Well, yeah, I can see how you might see it that way... I think matters of personal taste often can turn on a knife-edge, as to whether we like or dislike something. In other words, we can all be a bit arbitrary. My guess is that, based on some first impression or someone else's opinion first heard, the average human being might just as well decide to love or hate any given thing...for having precisely the same characteristics!

I always rather expected Elves to be serene (except when angry). But if I took a notion to look upon it as a cliche, then I would probably be irritated by it too.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Grab
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 12:24 PM

Yeah, but there's serene and then there's stoned out of your mind! Still, I spose when you're living in the forest and all there is to eat is mushrooms... ;-)

Tolkien's elves weren't really strangely serene - the "normal" elves were as outgoing as you like, and he always says Rivendell is all laughter and dancing. It was only really the elven royalty who were reserved and stately. Ah well. Elrond and Arwen got some character changes in the film, but I think it worked well. Just a shame the Galadriel/Gimli scene and the friendly rivalry between Legolas and Gimli got cut - that's the only real character development that these guys get in the whole thing.

BTW, doesn't Orlando Bloom have some moves with that bow and arrow?! :-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 02:25 PM

The most important criterion of a book or play or painting for me, is 'involvement'. If by the third page the writer's style is still getting in my way, it's not a successful book for me. (Or if after I've read a hundred pages and I still don't care about any of the characters...)

When a writer can get one so involved, not only in a culture but a world that it's disorienting to return to one's own reality, that that, IMO, is a wildly successful story by a great writer.

I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: GUEST,Coyote Breath
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 03:44 PM

I saw it last night. With girlfriend and her brother (neither of whom have read the books - they both loved it) I was blown away by how close it was to what I had imagined it would all look (and sound) like. It were as if I was having a rememberence of the book, a day dream. Elven is a lovely language when spoken. I think that many people confuse any English "accent" that isn't from either Knightsbridge or East-end as being Irish. Even among the many distinct areas of the "Emerald Isle" spoken English can sound "un-Irish" to the un-initiated.

Pippin or Merry (I could never keep them straight in the books either) occasionally sounded "Irish". Sam occasinally sounded as though "bung woodenall" (bung wood in the hall - close the door) was a familiar phrase. Ahh.

I have read all four books (and the Silmarillion) numerous times. I am not a purist but a genuine-ist, the stories are worth the telling and the film does them justice.

I wish it was next year!

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 03:55 PM

Is Galadriel an ordinary name somewhere, or is this where our "hippy, trippy" friend got the name for his daughter?

If I had known back in the 60's that there was some merit to the Tolkien works, other than the written incarnation of various chemical trips, I might have given it more of a chance. As it was, I kept confusing the characters and places, much like my experience with some of the Russian authors, and gave up the effort as too much work.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:00 PM

you know someone who named their kid Galadriel????

Poor kid...

stupid parents...

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:17 PM

Apparently, one of the things that Tolkien most deplored was LOTR's popularity amongst the '60s counter-culture, who insisted on seeing it as an allegory for various political and religious themes, and/or a literary manifestation of the current drug culture.

I seriously doubt he'd have been particularly chuffed about someone calling their child after one of his fictional characters---you'll notice he didn't have a son called Frodo!

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:26 PM

Yes, Galadriel is the friend's daughter's name, and now I know where he got it. Of course, nowadays (that last word alone connotes entrenched old-farthood) many people invent names, most of which are not nearly as evocative as Galadriel.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:27 PM

JRR hated allegory... period... full stop...

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:37 PM

Just got back from seeing it. For the first time it won't be the last.

And my worries that they might have turned the hobbits into Darby O'Gill clones are set at rest.

Myself I'd have liked a bit more food and relaxation in the film - one of the pleasures of the book is that every now and then the characters and the readers get a bit of a feed to cheer them up. But that's a minor point, and the film managed remarkably well to compress the pot without losing anything essential. In fact some of the compression made it work better - I've always felt that the delay in getting the journey to Rivendell started once Gandalf has identified the ring doesn't really make too much sense.

And I agree about missing the Gimli-Legolas-Galadriel interaction, which adds a useful bit of depth to the relationships, and wouldn't have taken more than a few lines of dialogue. Oh well, maybe the lines are there on the cutting room floor and they'll be restored some time.

Great.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: SDShad
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 04:47 PM

Well, I've a second cousin in Minnesota who named a daughter Arwen and gave a son the middle name of Faramir. Just so long as nobody names their kids Grima or Ugluk or Ghan-Buri-Ghan or Smaug....

Seeing the movie on December 29 in a theatre in Sioux Falls with, I'm told, very posh seats,

Shad

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 05:12 PM

I am genuinely thrilled that these books finally made it into a film series that treats them with dignity and skill...and that I have lived to see it! And I am delighted how much pleasure it is giving to so many fellow Mudcatters. This is the most enjoyable thing that's happened in some time.

Thanks, Mr. Tolkien! Without you it would never have happened.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Amergin
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 05:22 PM

always wanted to name my boy gollum....

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 05:50 PM

All (well, I suppose I should say "most of" to be safe) of those Elvish names, and many of the "mannish" names (in Westron, the widespread language represented in the book by English) have names which are meaningful.

Thus Arwen is AR- (Noble) and -WEN (woman).

Galadriel is from galadh- (tree) and I forget the other portion, from one or another of the Elvish languages.

Hobbitish names are not normally this way, because they are traditional names that come from the original Hobbit language, before the Hobbits adopted Westron.

Names from the Riddermark are from the language Tolkien designed for that culture, which is a sort of other-Anglo-Saxon, and many of these names have ascertainable meanings, as with Arwen and Galadriel.

All of this is tremendously fascinating, and will reward hours and hours and hours of wandering through Tolkiens lengthy appendices.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 06:03 PM

Lots of the time the names and words are in fact presented as translations from the original into equivalent names derived from existing tongues - thus for example "Hobbit" is a word based on Anglo-Saxon roots, meaning hole-builder, equivalent to, I think Kuddukim, meaning the same in one of the root languages of the Common Tongue.

It's all in the appendices to volume three. The languages came first, and the story arose from the need to have a world in which those languages would have a home. Very strange - but the result is a world imagined in a depth that is unique.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 06:26 PM

I saw it last night, and came out thinking that a year was too long before the next one, perhaps six months, but I agree four or three would be better still. I might well want to see it again on the big screen, too. It was stunning, even though I did at times find the geology as interesting as the action. It's a long time since I read the books, but I noticed things I would not have remembered unprompted - Legolas walking on the snow the others were struggling through.

I'm not sure how I feel about Arwen - the serious absence of females to identify with was one of the reasons I put the books by. In my teens, being Eowyn was fine, but there are other ways to be a female actor than being a pretend male, and one grows out of it. The elven characters are too elevated for mere mortals, and the only ones I ever found left were Rosie and the herb woman in Gondor. (Compare with the Odyssey, where even a goddess can be identified with.) I don't think the film can successfully work round this without distorting the books.

I've heard that the film was made with the intention of it looking as if the cameras were there, filming the real events as they happened, and I think it truly succeeds in this. It is visually tremendous. The detail of the environments of the peoples is fantastic. (Apart from the oil seed rape (maybe it's mustard) and the corn (but is that in the text?) in the hobbit fields.

Go and see it yourselves.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 06:37 PM

You mean western hemispher CORN corn--maize? That's a major blunder!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 09:09 PM

No blunder. This is all supposed to be a long time ago. No more implausable to have maize or rape in Europe than Woolly Rhinoceroses in Sussex in the Ice Age and so forth, as if it it mattered.

Both crops had a visual impact which was no doubt intended. Maize provided a crop tall enough to tower above the heads of the hobbits (wheat and barley wouldn't have done thta), rape provided a bright happy yellow colour for the Shire fields.

In fact the vegetation and scenery was New Zealand rather than European, and I'm sure that any expert on that kind of thing could point out lots of plants which are not found elsewhere. But again, that has a value, because though we may not know the plants, it meant there was a subtle difference about the place, for those of us from the Northern hemisphere..

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 01 - 10:23 PM

It's true that there wasn't much substantial development of female characters in LOR (the books, I mean), but that was generally true in most adventure fiction at that time, and it has only begun to change since, I'd say, the early 70's, due to the women's movement, and a general raising of consciousness about gender roles.

The best adventure series with a female character I've ever read was a trilogy about a Samurai woman called Tomoe Gozen in a fictional country called Naipon (meant to be a counterpart to Japan, but in another dimension of reality). The author is Jessica Amanda Salmonson. They are wonderful books, and I found them far more interesting than I have found any such fantasy books with the standard male hero. I love Japan, so that helped too.

Tomoe is simply the most formidable creature with a sword in her hand that I can imagine, and she is free of the usual male ego problems. Even Aragorn would not fare well against her, if he had the bad judgement to take her on, which I am sure he would not. Aragorn is no dummy. More likely he would join forces with her.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 11:41 AM

McGrath of Harlow:

I'm not an expert on wooly mammoths, so I don't get the full import of your comment there.

But maize is not a natural plant; it's an "engineered" species, developed by the South American Indians, maybe only ten thousand years ago. Couldn't be in Middle Earth.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 12:06 PM

Yes, Dave, but they had some pretty clever "engineers" in Middle Earth too, don't forget. For something like corn to manifest at all, it must first exist in the unmanifest...as an organized principle, with its own identity. Some inspired person (or persons) then tune into it at some point, do the necessary work...and presto! It becomes manifested in physical reality, through the various means of natural evolution and/or deliberate human creative work which we are all familiar with.

By this means corn, the paddle, the spear, the collie dog, the spaceship or the armchair can therefore appear on a variety of planets and in a variety of cultures, at totally different times, without any of them suspecting a thing about the others having done it...unless they meet those others and see it for themselves.

That's how it works. Therefore, I submit that your objections to the presence of corn in Middle Earth carry little weight.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 12:10 PM

When the Harry Potter movie came out, SOME ultra-conservative church groups condemned it. The question was raised whether Christians (the rest of us) would condemn Lord of the Rings.

From the A.P. " Two Southern Baptist theologians are hailing J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the RIngs" fantasies. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and James Parker of SOuthern Baptist Theological Seminary noted that Tolkien's mythical "Middle Earth" reflects the Christian understanding of reality."

Good ole'Southern Baptists..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 12:18 PM

Middle Earth is not anywhere in the British Isles. It is not in Europe. It is not in New Zealand. It is not anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, nor for that matter, is it on Mars. Middle Earth is Middle Earth. Quibbling over whether maize did or did not grow there is kind of nit-picky, don't you think?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 12:22 PM

Dead right, Don! Still, I couldn't pass up an opportunity to expound on a spiritual principle... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 22 Dec 01 - 03:54 PM

Middle earth is Pangea... at least that was the way JRR wanted it to be seen... as the possible pre-history of our world... It was NOT created out of thin air...

"ultra-conservative church groups"

who cares, one way or the other... I'll be making up my own mind thanks... As a matter of fact, when the zealots condemn something, it tends to lend STRENGTH to its favour in my book...

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: richlmo
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:34 AM

Saw it today. Really good. It's been years since I read the books and I think maybe that made the movie better. I didn't really notice the missing parts, except Tom Bombadil, who was one of the most enjoyable characters in the book. The scenery , the attention to detail and the faithful telling of the story is truely exceptional. But the most amazing part is the casting. Everyone looks just as I remembered and every actor seemed to live the part. My one minor complaint was the not so believable looking cave troll, but what should a cave troll look like? It scared the crap out of my 12 year old and his 13 year old cousin! I'm going back!! Best movie I've seen a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: richlmo
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:38 AM

Maybe the Hobbits could have been a little hairier. And smoking pipes.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:40 AM

Another thread on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Lord of the Rings - Just see it!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:46 AM

Cave troll? Cave troll? I don't recall any cave troll in LOTR (though it is true it's been about a year since I last read it.)

Dave Oesterreich