Jack Law's Lord of the Rings Thread.

[vershy versh]

 

[Corpsey]

I'm reading 'the two towers' atm. At first I struggled to get back into it ("FORTH THE THREE HUNTERS!") but I was quickly seduced by the endless walking through barren plains etc. I also surprisingly ended up really enjoying the chapter about the ents, which I had to steel myself for—I think it helped me escape from the wretchedness of my quarantine, imagining a world where trees (more or less) have houses with tables in them.

It's continually surprising to me how much the books and films deviate—for example, it isn't in the films that Saruman is trying to get the ring for himself and (in Gandalf's view) will inevitably end up clashing with Sauron. In the film, Saruman seems to be bent on making an alliance with Sauron and serves him (at his Palantir-relayed command) by sending an army to crush Rohan in Helm's Deep. In the book, Saruman does this in part because he suspects Merry and Pippin have been captured by the riders of Rohan and that Theoden might get hold of the ring himself... I think?

 

[Mr. Tea]

@Corpsey

 

[Corpsey]

I was reading TTT last night, the chapter where they arrive in Rohan and get Theoden out of Wormtongue's claws.

To my disappointment, much of this was Tolkien at his worst, IMO. I didn't realise just how much they changed about this bit in the film, and made it much more effective IMO. Perhaps the book is too 'subtle' for me (though I wouldn't describe anything about this chapter as subtle, really)—certainly Wormntongue is much less of an obvious ghoul here, whereas in the film he looks like Gollum with a wig on. But I love in the film how Saruman is literally possessing Theoden, and Gandalf reveals himself as the white wizard to 'draw him out'. (I realised here that Jackson probably played to his strengths as a horror director by making this change.)

Also, as many ppl have obviously noted, the character of Éowyn is an actual character in the books, whereas here she's just a maiden 'with hair like a river of gold'. Sorry, I mean 'like a river of gold her hair was', probably.

I also didn't like that they somehow fetch Éomer back from exile so that he can present Theoden with a sword, rather than it being a case of him being already far gone. (I guess this means they're not going to come riding down the mountain in the battle, too, which is a shame.) And then rather than it being a case of Theoden making the (arguably wrong) decision to retreat to Helm's Deep to protect his people, he instantly agrees to fight.

I mean, for a book reader the book version probably makes more sense and the film version is a betrayal which makes Theoden look like a coward, but I just found this version much less dramatic and the character of Theoden much less humanised and interesting. (Also hard to warm to the book Aragorn, who knows he's the rightful king and swaggers about like it, too.)

Mostly though it was the writing I found unbearable. Actually yearning for the return of some hobbits to balance out the heroic grandstanding tone. I've read online that many readers find that 'The Return of the King' gets particularly bombastic so maybe this is a sign of what's to come. The first half of TTT is largely hobbit-less, whereas Fellowship is hobbit-ful the whole way through.

I'm actually looking forward to returning to Frodo/Sam's adventure in part 2, which I didn't think I'd be saying.

 

[Corpsey]

One thing I did like was again showing Gandalf's power — he doesn't do the exorcism thing but he magically blasts Wormntongue's ass and perhaps this is also what changes Theoden back, though it's not clear.

 

[subvert47]

No, they really didn't make it more effective. They change the characters again and make them generic and trite. The characterization of Theoden in the films is totally clichéd and hence far less interesting. It's JRR Tolkien as per JK Rowling. One size fits all. Jackson is just a hack.

No, Theoden has not been "possessed" by Saruman. He's been manipulated by Wormtongue (at Saruman's behest), exploiting Theoden's own fears, which is far more interesting IMO. The films could do more with that kind of thing if they allowed the actors actually to act and gave them time to do so, rather than filling the screen with yet another half hour of battle scenes (however visually impressive).

No, they don't come riding down the mountain in the book. But actually I don't mind that change in the film. The huorns (Book 2) and the dead (Book 3) are a similar device in cinematic terms, so there's a point to removing one of them.

As for the style: That's the thing about Tolkien: he writes in multiple styles as and when. The heroic tone fits the regal characters. But Rohan is far less regal than Gondor, so you can expect to like the third book even less

Wanting to go back to Frodo is standard btw when reading TLOTR for the first time... Fuck all the rest, what's happening to Frodo and Sam? You only really get into the other stuff when rereading – and rereading again and again (which obviously you won't be doing).

But as for Frodo's story: this is where Jackson really goes to shit. Frodo's courageous and adult character is central to the whole book, whereas Jackson turns him into a child. He's little so he must be a child. FFS

 

[Corpsey]

Well I knew you'd disagree with me!

Maybe I should be less combative in my comparisons. I actually think both versions can coexist quite peacefully (am I wormtonguing?).

You must forgive me, I've watched the films about 300 times and--despite their many many flaws--love them.

Tbf to Jackson I think he and his co writers must love and revere the books as much as you do, but of course they were forced to make changes to adapt them into relatively short, exciting, dramatic films, and they did so IMO mostly very adroitly.

I do agree re: Frodo in the books being much better than in the film, in which he's a pretty bland hero. (Whereas I think they portrayed Bilbo really well.)

I'll try and leave off the films Vs books stuff from now on.

Should also say that up to this chapter I have been really enjoying the book, and I enjoyed elements of the chapter too.

As you say, though, I find the "regal" style quite repulsive, so I may have to grit my teeth for Gondor.

I don't suppose they'll adapt LOTR for a TV show for a long time, unless someone gives a studio the full rights.

What did you think of Rings of Power @subvert47

 

[Mr. Tea]

What did you think of Rings of Power @subvert47

My prediction:

 

[subvert47]

You must forgive me, I've watched the films about 300 times and--despite their many many flaws--love them.

Tbf to Jackson I think he and his co writers must love and revere the books as much as you do, but of course they were forced to make changes to adapt them into relatively short, exciting, dramatic films, and they did so IMO mostly very adroitly.

I've watched them a few times. I saw them in the cinema when they came out (because famous relative was in them) and have watched them since on the small screen. I actually just got the Extended Editions (which are supposed to be better) which I'll watch too in due course.

The films are visually spectacular – I'm not surprised they picked up a shedload of technical oscars – but there's too much spectacle IMO. Jackson has prioritized that over characterization and acting – and throws in more spectacle that wasn't there just to make it more "exciting". Did you (or someone) say he'd worked in horror? You'd think he'd have more feeling for atmosphere in that case. But perhaps all his films are like this.

What did you think of Rings of Power @subvert47

Not seen them. Don't intend to.

Incidentally, have you read this book...?

The Mythopoeic Society - Mythopoeic Press, Tolkien On Film

Academics getting seriously nerdy about TLOTR

 

[subvert47]

but right and proper that we should be arguing about TLOTR on Tolkien's birthday

 

[Corpsey]

my apologies to his shade 🙏

 

[Corpsey]

I've just finished the chapter where Gandalf et al reunite with Merry and Pippin -- and boy am I glad to see them. A bit of levity and warmth for Christ's sake. And inversions there may be less of, for pomposity less of there seems to be when hobbits are around. Modest they are.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I've just finished the chapter where Gandalf et al reunite with Merry and Pippin -- and boy am I glad to see them. A bit of levity and warmth for Christ's sake. And inversions there may be less of, for pomposity less of there seems to be when hobbits are around. Modest they are.

As much as I love the book, you're dead right that most of the non-hobbit dialogue is very ponderous and faux-epic.

 

[Corpsey]

There's an interesting bit at the start of the chapter after helms deep when Tolkien (or, I suppose, the narrator/scribe) describes how all the heroes meet up. What makes it interesting is that he describes who they all are, even though the reader knows who they are. "Legolas the Elf" etc.

I wondered if the reason he does this is because they are forming a sort of mythic/legendary tableau.

Probably if I knew anything about ancient norse sagas etc. I would know what he was up to.

 

[Corpsey]

I've finished the first part of TTT

I particularly enjoyed the three chapters after they've reunited with MerryPipz. I liked hearing the story of what had happened through a Hobbit's eyes/"prose" (the ents burrow through stone like "rabbits in a sand pit", Isengard flooded looks Iike "a huge flat saucepan, all steaming and bubbling).

And finding out more about the origin of the Palantirs (no Thiel) was cool.

Now back to Frodo.

 

[Corpsey]

An interesting reddit post I found trying to discover if Tolkien ever describes the orcs

I think its also worth noting that as Tolkien's academic career began, it was popularly (and erroneously) believed that humanity originated in the Caucasus Mountains, and that non-white peoples had degenerated into various subraces: the mongoloids of Asia, the congoids of Africa, etc. An example of how deeply this theory penetrated is the original name for Down Syndrome was Mongolism, out of the (erroneous, ableist, racist) perception that due to the characteristic facial features of people with this condition, they had genetically "degenerated" in similar fashion. As evidence for humanity's origin in Africa mounted, towards the end of Tolkien's career, some theoreticians suggested that *Homo sapiens* had evolved from *Homo erecteus* five separate times, including in Mongolia, once again reinventing the "mongol type" as a "scientific" racial category. Suffice it to say that this is, ahem, very racist bunk anthropology!

With this context, when Tolkien calls the orcs "degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types," he's not simply suggesting that they look like people from Mongolia. He is invoking this whole body of pseudoscientific literature to situate the orcs in relationship with Europeans.

HOWEVER--it is notable that Tolkien refuses to claim objectivity here. He says "least lovely (to Europeans)," which is significant because one of the central claims of the Caucasian theory of human evolution was that people from the Caucasus were the most beautiful, and therefore least degraded strain of humanity. Tolkien's academic work in philology had already punctured the theory somewhat---it's finding that European languages evolved from a common stem somewhere in India undercut any claims of a separate European evolutionary track or special descent from the Caucasus. So while Tolkien may be evoking these theories and be conversant in them, it certainly seems like he doesn't believe them, or at least the objective racial hierarchy they propose. Tolkien's famous letter to his German publishers is further evidence of this. And it is also worth mentioning that Asian and African people exist in Arda and are not equivalent to orcs, and are portrayed as deserving moral consideration---for example, Sam's reaction to the dead Haradrim soldier in Ithilien, and his speculation over what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.”

What is the take-away to all of this? I think it is clear that Tolkien was a racist in that he believed that race was a real, measurable thing that existed in the world, and that some of the terminology of this worldview carried over in his writing. But it is also clear that, to the extent that it was possible for someone of his station in his time, was not possessed of racial animus or racial superiority. He was opposed to the British Empire, had the "hatred of Apartheid in his bones," and rejected the supposed objectivity of scientific racism, both in England and Germany. He is a complicated man, and his work is complicated too

 

[Mr. Tea]