Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » question about ending of LOTR:ROTK
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282526 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 19:36
Derek Broughton  
David Gray Porter wrote:

> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
>> David Gray Porter wrote:
>>
>>> You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy?
>>
>> Not particularly.
>
> OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
> opera libretto? I keep hitting a brick wall due to what is to me a fault
> of the style -- being in love with the wound of your own words -- the
> times I tried.

Heavens! I once tried to write a small musical libretto - opera's _way_
beyond me :-)
>
>>> ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
>>> often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
>>> section.
>>
>> Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is too
>> wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
>> words he needed: and not a word more.
>
> As I say in another answer, it's what invariably happens when one writes
> in a style of an oral history, which is what Tolkien does, because when
> one puts it on paper that way you see exactly just how over-worded it is
> for
> reading. It's easy to prove -- switch from reading it off the page to
> having it read to you.

I saw that post, and mostly agreed - I just don't agree that that makes
Tolkien too wordy. I'm not sure what your proof proves, either - one of
the beauties of Tolkien's writing is that I hear it in my head _as if_ it's
being read to me, and I know others in these groups feel the same way.
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282528 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 20:23
Christopher Kreuzer  
David Gray Porter <portniek [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual
> post.

I used OE Quotefix, the thing Troels mentioned earlier.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282529 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 20:24
Christopher Kreuzer  
David Gray Porter <portniek [at] earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> I'm not bringing up the Bombadil omission because that part
> of the book is frankly embarrassing.

Oh really? Why is that?
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282530 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 20:37
Christopher Kreuzer  
phlip <phlip2005 [at] gEEEmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

<snip>

> Look closer at the Old Forest. One of Tolkien's common themes is an
> enchanted forest on the border of a realm. Even the Shire gets one.
> And the Witch King tried to use it against Frodo. He passed thru the
> area and cast spells to awaken every wicked thing from the Baranduin
> to Tyrn Gothad.
>
> Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle), and by a
> tree (life). Then again by air (mist), and in a barrow (death).
> Bombadil reliably rescues him, each time.

Interesting. Do you think the water/air, life/death thing has any overt
meaning, or is it just a nice correspondence? I don't think you can say
Tolkien intended this, but it is nice.

> In between each rescue, he spends two nights in B's house. This
> represents an "unexpected party" - the rest and tuck-in before a long
> march.

There are lots of 'quiet moments before danger' throughout the book.
This one doesn't seem any different in that respect to the others.

> It also gives Frodo two nights to dream, in the house of a
> de-facto Maiar.

Well, just to dream. I wouldn't overplay the "Maiar" bit.

> During the first dream, he sees the Elvish Towers on the West
> frontier of his homeland. He has a compulsion to climb the tower and
> see the Sea. (Recall that one of these towers contains a Palantir
> capable of viewing Tirion.)
>
> During the second dream, he sees silver rain that rolls back like a
> curtain, revealing a far country. This is a premonition of his arrival
> /at/ Tirion.

Aha! Very good. I like that. I hadn't made that connection between the
two dreams. But then what about Frodo's other dreams (some back in the
Shire, and possibly some later on)? And what about what Frodo sees in
Galadriel's mirror?

And don't forget the bit where Bombadil tells the hobbits tales of
ancient times "singing back into the ancient starlight, when only the
elf sires were awake". And the "who are you" - "Eldest" bit. That is
absolutely the most magical moment in the whole book.

> So Tom Bombadil's house represents Frodo spiritually preparing for the
> ordeal he must soon face, to save his Shire and all Middle-earth. Of
> course he is not mentally or physically ready. He has many mistakes
> yet to make.
>
> Because "an evil will oft doth evil mar", the Witch King should not
> have activated the Barrow Wights. This lead to Bombadil despoiling the
> barrow, and that lead to Merry receiving a sword crafted by
> Numenoreans during their wars with Angmar. No other sword could deal
> the Witch King so bitter a wound.

Haven't seen the complete link made from activation by the WK to
stabbing of the WK by Merry. That's an interesting idea.

> And when Tom, the ultimate air-head, fiiinally escorts the Hobbits to
> his borders (once the last border between Numenoreans and realms
> conquered by Angmar), Tom takes them right to a spot on the road
> where a certain Numenorean is hiding behind the border hedge.

Well, I don't think Aragorn would have failed to meet up with the
hobbits, regardless of what Bombadil did. And calling Bombadil an
airhead is really not on! :-)

Thanks for that analysis of the Bombadil sequence.
Do you think it is filmable? Including the dreams?

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282531 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 20:38
Christopher Kreuzer  
Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:

<snip>

> - one of the beauties of Tolkien's writing is that I hear it in my
> head _as if_ it's being read to me, and I know others in these groups
> feel the same way.

Absolutely. Or I just read it out anyway.
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282532 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 21:04
Phlip  
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

>> Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle), and by a
>> tree (life). Then again by air (mist), and in a barrow (death).
>> Bombadil reliably rescues him, each time.
>
> Interesting. Do you think the water/air, life/death thing has any overt
> meaning, or is it just a nice correspondence? I don't think you can say
> Tolkien intended this, but it is nice.

The two chapters are stupid without it. The Withywindle has no
significance to the plot (other than to form a modern mirror of the
ancient Tasarinan). The barrow wight itself has no significance.

>> In between each rescue, he spends two nights in B's house. This
>> represents an "unexpected party" - the rest and tuck-in before a long
>> march.
>
> There are lots of 'quiet moments before danger' throughout the book.
> This one doesn't seem any different in that respect to the others.

It's carbo-loading. Eating and sleeping a lot. Frodo couldn't do it until
now, due to his cover story of moving to Crickhollow.

> Aha! Very good. I like that. I hadn't made that connection between the
> two dreams. But then what about Frodo's other dreams (some back in the
> Shire, and possibly some later on)? And what about what Frodo sees in
> Galadriel's mirror?

They are not Bombadil-influenced.

Imagine Middle-earth is a single desolate craton, with nothing living on
it. Then Something arives, and it watches life arise. It sees the first
acorn fall. It takes shape, and sees the Great Old Forest stretch from the
Baranduin to the Anduin. It is an Earth Spirit, the ward of Middle-earth,
and it uses spontaneous randomness to slowly and subtly influence its
entire domain.

> Haven't seen the complete link made from activation by the WK to
> stabbing of the WK by Merry. That's an interesting idea.

All evil acts come back in unexpected ways to harm the do-er. All acts,
even mistakes, with good intentions, come back to help the do-er.

Note that as Angmar rose to challenge Arnor, halflings living south of
Rivendell fled (back) over the Misty Mountains, and settled the Gladden
Fields. There they developed a riparian culture. Lots of fishing and
diving. And, after a while, one of them notices a gleam of gold at the
bottom of a pool...

(Another movie screw-up - we all agree Gollum himself was perfect (and
far-and-above the best actor!;). The sequence showing him degrading
was simply amazing. He even pronounced "yarr-um" correctly. However, when
he found the Ring, he should have been dressed like a riparian indian,
like a Lenni Lenapi! Not like a Shire hobbit while sport-fishing!!)

> Do you think it is filmable? Including the dreams?

The pen is mightier than the story-board. ;-)

--
Phlip
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282533 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 21:06
Phlip  
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

> David Gray Porter <portniek [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual
>> post.
>
> I used OE Quotefix, the thing Troels mentioned earlier.

Learn to edit text rapidly, with keystrokes, without reaching for the
mouse.

--
Phlip
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282538 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 22:30
David Gray Porter  
I'm sorry, but you got Monty Python stuck in me mind...

--
http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc


"phlip" <phlip2005 [at] gEEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.06.18.04.38.896821 [at] gEEEmail.com...
>
> Look closer at the Old Forest. One of Tolkien's common themes is an
> enchanted forest on the border of a realm. Even the Shire gets one. And
> the Witch King tried to use it against Frodo. He passed thru the area and
> cast spells to awaken every wicked thing from the Baranduin to Tyrn
> Gothad.

OK, that'a granted, but it doesn't change the embarrassing quality that
imbues Bombadil that made me cringe in my later high school years.

> Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle),

Oh man, those names!
Derrek the Dwarf lived down by the Dingly Dell, There he sold prophylactics
to the children and ... !! -- with a melon!???
The Shire stuff is just too clying!
"Withywindle." Ack.
But the Shire gets cool when one of the Merry Companions sez he wants to
punch Lotho's pimply face...

I'll greant your points and I see the connections in your analysis, but it
can't change the content of the Bombadil passages. "Ya cain't put lipstick
onna pig an' 'spect it look like somethin' beside a pig."
Hey Doll trip and fall
Hard upon your boot-y!
Tom's pass'd out 'gainst the wall
Pants all full of dooty!
short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #282539 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 22:30
TT Arvind  
Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:

> Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
> much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)

Though not "pithy" in the "Well, I'm back" sense, there are a number of
instances where characters say a lot in a sentence or two. Tolkien was
actually very good at this. Examples:

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

"Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and
beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!"

--
Arvind

How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow?
It has more feathers than the dove, and it doesn't have that dangerous
beak.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282540 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 22:44
David Gray Porter  
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6Ljhg.81933$wl.63975 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> David Gray Porter <portniek [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not bringing up the Bombadil omission because that part
>> of the book is frankly embarrassing.
>
> Oh really? Why is that?

Too cute. The part of the trilogy geared toward children under 8.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282541 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 22:46
David Gray Porter  
Maybe it's just the individual's writing style. I never had a problem
reading Shakespeare but a lot of people tell me they find him infathomable.

And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.

"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:d2rgl3-d2i.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
> David Gray Porter wrote:
>
>> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>> news:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
>>> David Gray Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy?
>>>
>>> Not particularly.
>>
>> OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
>> opera libretto? I keep hitting a brick wall due to what is to me a fault
>> of the style -- being in love with the wound of your own words -- the
>> times I tried.
>
> Heavens! I once tried to write a small musical libretto - opera's _way_
> beyond me :-)
>>
>>>> ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
>>>> often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
>>>> section.
>>>
>>> Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is
>>> too
>>> wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
>>> words he needed: and not a word more.
>>
>> As I say in another answer, it's what invariably happens when one writes
>> in a style of an oral history, which is what Tolkien does, because when
>> one puts it on paper that way you see exactly just how over-worded it is
>> for
>> reading. It's easy to prove -- switch from reading it off the page to
>> having it read to you.
>
> I saw that post, and mostly agreed - I just don't agree that that makes
> Tolkien too wordy. I'm not sure what your proof proves, either - one of
> the beauties of Tolkien's writing is that I hear it in my head _as if_
> it's
> being read to me, and I know others in these groups feel the same way.
> --
> derek
Re: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #282543 ] Di, 06 Juni 2006 23:52
Christopher Kreuzer  
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:
>
>> Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
>> much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)
>
> Though not "pithy" in the "Well, I'm back" sense, there are a number
> of instances where characters say a lot in a sentence or two.
> Tolkien was actually very good at this. Examples:
>
> 'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'
>
> "Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and
> beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!"

Nice!

That's reminded me of one of my favorites as well:

"'You come at last,' she said. 'I have waited too long.'
'It was a dark road. I have come as I could,' he answered.
'But you are too late,' [she] said. 'They are lost.'
'I know it,' he said. 'But you are not.'
But [she] said: 'Almost. I am spent. I shall go with the sun.

[...]

they sat beside the stone, and did not speak again; and when the sun
went down Morwen sighed and clasped his hand, and was still; and Hurin
knew that she had died." (Of the Ruin of Doriath)

The text before and after the conversation is strong, vibrant and
definitely not short: "...that light still gleamed in them that long ago
had earned for her the name Eledhwen, proudest and most beautiful of
mortal women in the days of old." and "[he] sat unmoving beside her as
the night drew down. The waters of Cabed Naeramarth roared on, but he
heard no sound..." etc.

But the actual words between Morwen and Hurin speak absolute volumes,
and no more is needed. Short and to the point. And totally
heartbreaking.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Re: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #282546 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 02:02
Christopher Kreuzer  
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:
>
>> Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
>> much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)
>
> Though not "pithy" in the "Well, I'm back" sense, there are a number
> of instances where characters say a lot in a sentence or two.
> Tolkien was actually very good at this.

Here's another one:

"Ónen i-Estel Edain, ú-chebin estel anim."

(Gilraen's linnod from Appendix A: "I gave Hope to the Dúnedain, I have
kept no hope for myself.")
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282547 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 02:17
Phlip  
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

> Well, I don't think Aragorn would have failed to meet up with the
> hobbits, regardless of what Bombadil did. And calling Bombadil an
> airhead is really not on! :-)

What's most curious is this: Tom leaves Frodo on the road, and Frodo
immediately reminds his companions to use the name Underhill. He doesn't
mention it again (and it foreshadows Bree). Only after this lecture do they
start walking.

In Bree, Aragorn slips over the gate after them, and meets Frodo in the Inn.
He says he overhead the name "Underhill", on the road - a name he was
waiting to hear.

This implies that Tom brought Frodo directly to the spot where he was most
likely to say "Underhill" close enough to Aragorn for him to hear it. Frodo
must say "Underhill" only after leaving Tom and before traveling on the
road.

And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he overlooked a
full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??

--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282548 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 03:50
Emma Pease  
In article <fWohg.39908$4L1.24125 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Phlip wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't think Aragorn would have failed to meet up with the
>> hobbits, regardless of what Bombadil did. And calling Bombadil an
>> airhead is really not on! :-)
>
> What's most curious is this: Tom leaves Frodo on the road, and Frodo
> immediately reminds his companions to use the name Underhill. He doesn't
> mention it again (and it foreshadows Bree). Only after this lecture do they
> start walking.
>
> In Bree, Aragorn slips over the gate after them, and meets Frodo in the Inn.
> He says he overhead the name "Underhill", on the road - a name he was
> waiting to hear.
>
> This implies that Tom brought Frodo directly to the spot where he was most
> likely to say "Underhill" close enough to Aragorn for him to hear it. Frodo
> must say "Underhill" only after leaving Tom and before traveling on the
> road.
>
> And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he overlooked a
> full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??

If Tom realized Aragorn was there he would likely realize that he was
a ranger and meant no evil.

There probably weren't too many usual exits out of Tom's land and
Aragorn possibly knew enough to wait and watch (or possibly was
considering entering himself to search).

Aragorn didn't need the "Underhill" reference to realize the party
almost certainly included Frodo (four hobbits wandering around was
unusual enough and it is possible that Pippin, Merry, and Frodo had
some family resemblence to Bilbo who Aragorn knew). Underhill
confirmed his suspicion and would also confirm which hobbit was
Frodo. He later tried to use it to get in with the hobbits, but, that
backfired a bit.

On a side issue, how extensive were Tom's contacts outside his land.
He knew Farmer Maggot. He knew of Butterbur but did he know him
personally? I think yes. Others? Some rangers?



--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282549 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 04:44
Stan Brown  
Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:10:10 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
<spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Count Menelvagor <Menelvagor [at] mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
> > "mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here" or "they are
> > gone. they left the havens long ago."
>
> Ooh! This could be fun!!
>
> Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

Tolkien himself talks about this at length in a Letter. He points out
that his language, especially when it seems "archaic", is often more
terse than contemporary language. His example is "Helms too they
chose", which in modern language would be "They also picked out
helmets" or something of the source. (I'm paraphrasing from memory,
except that I'm sure of the "Helms too they chose" quote, which was
part of the narration of events in Rohan.)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282550 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 04:47
Stan Brown  
Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:30:04 GMT from David Gray Porter
<portniek [at] earthlink.net>:
> I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual post.

You *have* to "mess with each individual post", because you need to
trim your quoted material.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282551 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 05:31
Phlip  
Emma Pease wrote:

>> And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he
>> overlooked a
>> full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??
>
> If Tom realized Aragorn was there he would likely realize that he was
> a ranger and meant no evil.

When Tom spoke of the history of Arnor, during Frodo's day of rest, the
hobbits fell into visions of a line of kings and chieftans; the last with a
star on his brow.

That introduced the topic of Aragorn to the readers, and forshadowed Frodo
meeting him.

I think Tom subconsciously lead Frodo directly to Aragorn, but Tom remained
too wifty and random to simply introduce them. And of course "here's this
guy behind the hedge" would have been awkward.

--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282552 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 08:32
David Gray Porter  
Why did the word "dick" come to mind?

Oh look, I over-snipped...
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282553 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 08:38
David Gray Porter  
OK, rag me about the top post if you have nothing better... however ...

That line. "Helms too they chose," is wonderful in its MUSICAL quality. It
is PRECISELY the line a librettist would want from a writer, and a composer
would want from a poet. "HELMS TOO, THEY CHOSE" is probably how it would be
set, as:
quarter / triplet quarter plus triplet eighth / quarter / quarter rest
HELMS TOO THEY CHOSE!
[hope the alignment happens]

(And the line should be sent as an affirmative, with a forceful presentation
and array of notes for the melody, because they didn't fuck around! How
'bout F#-B-F#-d#?)



"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ef007b51858a30198a526 [at] news.individual.net...
> Tolkien himself talks about this at length in a Letter. He points out
> that his language, especially when it seems "archaic", is often more
> terse than contemporary language. His example is "Helms too they
> chose", which in modern language would be "They also picked out
> helmets" or something of the source. (I'm paraphrasing from memory,
> except that I'm sure of the "Helms too they chose" quote, which was
> part of the narration of events in Rohan.)
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282554 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 08:41
David Gray Porter  
"Phlip" <phlipcpp [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fWohg.39908$4L1.24125 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he overlooked
> a full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??

The acid kicked in just as Merry and Pip assumed their shapes of toaster and
coffee percolater...
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282555 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 12:06
Charilaos Velaris  
> That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

I admit to never having understood Bombadil from a story-internal
perspective, although I have read the various theories, e.g. Robert Foster's
take that he is "a Maia gone native" (the least improbable) as well as
others who believe him to be Aulë (with Goldberry as Yavanna) or even Eru
himself. The problem, I think, is that he just doesn't fit in. Without being
able to prove it, I believe that Tolkien could have intended to further
develop the character. Gandalf and the Elves know about him and he is
respected among them. His stature is further elevated by the fact that
Gandalf deems it proper to have a long talk with him at the end of the war.
However, the tone in the Bombadil chapters is alien to LotR and could have
been plucked out of a children's book.
If, on the other hand, Bombadil was referred to by his Sindarin name,
Iarwain Ben-Adar (Old Without-father) and he spoke in a more sophisticated,
less childish manner, I agree he could be a very intriguing character. As it
is, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a Maia acting like a clown. Is there
anything about Bombadil in Tolkien's letters (other than the story about the
inspiration from his son's doll)?
Another thought: Could the whole Bombadil story be a kind of collective
dream for the company? Thus, it could have been an Ainu orchestrating the
show in order to get across his message and arm the Hobbits with the
Barrow-blade, but he didn't have an actual physical form involving a blue
jacket and yellow boots. An Elf could have seen him differently, say dressed
in a L?rien cloak with long silver hair.
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282556 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 13:25
Taemon  
David Gray Porter wrote:

> And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.

And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?

Oh, wait.

Here.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

You're welcome.

T.
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282557 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 15:32
Phlip  
Charilaos Velaris wrote:

> ... His stature is further elevated by the fact that Gandalf deems it
> proper to have a long talk with him at the end of the war.

That wasn't just the end of the war. It was the end of Gandalf's >2,000 year
visit to Middle-earth.

> ...I am uncomfortable with the idea of a Maia acting like a clown...

Would you prefer the Norse god Loki?

(Whose mask can turn ordinary dweebs into Jim Carrey?;)

> ...to get across his message and arm the Hobbits with the Barrow-blade...

It's not just about the Barrow-blade!

--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282558 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 15:35
urban  
If direct quotes from characters in the stories are the topic, one
that I use quite a lot is, "I am no weather-master; nor is aught that
goes on two legs."
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282559 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 15:52
Derek Broughton  
David Gray Porter wrote:

> Why did the word "dick" come to mind?
>
> Oh look, I over-snipped...

David, it's a matter of etiquette. There's just no call to piss everybody
off.
--
derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282560 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 19:40
bredband.net  
"David Gray Porter" <portniek [at] earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:qqwgg.8811$921.3758 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

[snip]

> Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.
> There's a lot of fukkin' bloody hand-to-hand combat in the books too. In
> a film you need the main characters to be the ones doing the fighting.
> And characters get combined -- Glorfindl and Arwen and Elrond and ... oh,
> what
And in the film, Glorfindl was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't he?

Öjevind
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282561 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 20:00
Phlip  
Öjevind Lång wrote:

> And in the film, Glorfindel was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't
> he?

Hasta la vista, Balrog!

--
Phlip
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282562 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 20:25
JimboCat  
Phlip wrote:
>That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

Hurrah! Well done!

I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the Master
managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to me.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
The great danger of
Hydrogen cyanide is
Not to be sniffed at
Re: short quotes [Was - question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282563 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 20:27
nfw  
Morgil a écrit :
> Phlip wrote:
>> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>> Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....
>>
>> "Fly, you fools!"
>
> "Wherever I have been, I am back,"

"Pipsqueak had a strange feeling: he stood still like a great boulder by
the sea, while Gandalf's words crashed over him like waves driven by a
violent wind"
and
"A flowing trumpet call rang out from the distant castle, and at that
signal, the seven gates of the city swung open, welcoming visitors with
the promise of Magic™ and Wonder™" (Book V, Chapter 1: Minas Tirith™)

and also

"He also wanted to know if Bombadil still had his copy of the DSM
IV lying around somewhere" (Book VI, Chapter 7: Bound To Go Homewards)

Well done! :-)

--
nfw - brasseur grandefaux com
à point
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282569 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 07:37
Laurie Forbes  
"JimboCat" <103134.3516 [at] compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1149704754.477952.208910 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Phlip wrote:
> >That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
>
> Hurrah! Well done!
>
> I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
> within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the Master
> managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to me.
>
> Jim Deutch (JimboCat)

I second the "well done" part! I can't remember when I've enjoyed a post as
much as I did this one by Phlip (alas, now snipped) (the post, that is) ..
or phlip, as he was known in those days. Readable and thought-stimulating
for all, IMO, and especially so for anyone like me who's simply "read the
book" but never made it through any of the supporting (?) literature.
("Letters" ...... [SHIVER])

--
Laurie Forbes
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282570 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 08:14
David Gray Porter  
OK, point taken, but it's a habit from when I was reading for a blind friend
every week, and in sveeral groups there was a discussion about how much to
NOT snip as well as how much to snip. I leave as much as I feel is needed
for context.

"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:c92jl3-51m.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
> David Gray Porter wrote:
>
>> Oh look, I over-snipped...
>
> It's a matter of etiquette. There's just no call to piss everybody
> off.
> --
> derek
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282571 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 08:19
David Gray Porter  
Well, thanx, twerp.

"Taemon" <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4enrdpF1fgsojU1 [at] individual.net...
> David Gray Porter wrote:
>
>> And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.
>
> And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
> problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?

Would you like me to insert a digit into an anonymous person's anal orifice?
I'll use a "3." The esses make for easy insertion...
Hey, weed, you might suggest a solution.
Or am I putting wings on the Balrog?

> Oh, wait.
>
> Here.
>
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
> You're welcome.
>
> T.
>
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282572 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 08:25
David Gray Porter  
What I like about this commentary is that it recasts the Bombadil episode in
a Silmarillion light.
And yes, I am deliberately not smipping it all, because it is worth
repetition.
And Philip Glass is more repetetive than my reposting this, so "in winter."

"Charilaos Velaris" <velaris.charilaos [at] wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:4486a514$0$920$ba4acef3 [at] news.orange.fr...
>
>
>> That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
>
> I admit to never having understood Bombadil from a story-internal
> perspective, although I have read the various theories, e.g. Robert
> Foster's take that he is "a Maia gone native" (the least improbable) as
> well as others who believe him to be Aulë (with Goldberry as Yavanna) or
> even Eru himself. The problem, I think, is that he just doesn't fit in.
> Without being able to prove it, I believe that Tolkien could have intended
> to further develop the character. Gandalf and the Elves know about him and
> he is respected among them. His stature is further elevated by the fact
> that Gandalf deems it proper to have a long talk with him at the end of
> the war. However, the tone in the Bombadil chapters is alien to LotR and
> could have been plucked out of a children's book.
> If, on the other hand, Bombadil was referred to by his Sindarin name,
> Iarwain Ben-Adar (Old Without-father) and he spoke in a more
> sophisticated, less childish manner, I agree he could be a very intriguing
> character. As it is, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a Maia acting
> like a clown. Is there anything about Bombadil in Tolkien's letters (other
> than the story about the inspiration from his son's doll)?
> Another thought: Could the whole Bombadil story be a kind of collective
> dream for the company? Thus, it could have been an Ainu orchestrating the
> show in order to get across his message and arm the Hobbits with the
> Barrow-blade, but he didn't have an actual physical form involving a blue
> jacket and yellow boots. An Elf could have seen him differently, say
> dressed in a L?rien cloak with long silver hair.
>
Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK] [message #282574 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 11:05
bredband.net  
"Laurie Forbes" <moc.rr.eniam [at] 1sebrofr> skrev i meddelandet
news:sIOhg.14099$W97.7257 [at] twister.nyroc.rr.com...

> "JimboCat" <103134.3516 [at] compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:1149704754.477952.208910 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Phlip wrote:
>> >That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
>>
>> Hurrah! Well done!
>>
>> I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
>> within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the Master
>> managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to me.
>>
>> Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
>
> I second the "well done" part! I can't remember when I've enjoyed a post
> as
> much as I did this one by Phlip (alas, now snipped) (the post, that is) ..
> or phlip, as he was known in those days. Readable and thought-stimulating
> for all, IMO, and especially so for anyone like me who's simply "read the
> book" but never made it through any of the supporting (?) literature.
> ("Letters" ...... [SHIVER])

I third it. Man, do some of Tolkien's letter suck! His books are
*literature*, to be enjoyed as such, not sacred texts. It's a pity that he
himself apparently began to forget that at times when corresponding with
some of his more scholastically inclined admireres. Still, I think he would
have been quite annoyed if someone had written to ask him about B*lr*g
w*ngs.

Öjevind
The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #282579 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 11:31
bredband.net  
"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
news:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...

[snip]

>> ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
>> often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
>> section.
>
> Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is too
> wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
> words he needed: and not a word more.

I agree. Criticizing Tolkien for not writing film script when he wrote LotR
seems a bit weird to me. And I write as one who enjoyed Jackson's films but
think they could have been much better. I was annoyed by all the gratuitous
snipping or twisting of dialogue and plot to include more cool fighting. (Of
course, I do not mean to imply that the films could have been made
completely without editing and minor plot changes.)
I also thought a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens & Walsh
really sucked. Elrond thundering: "Man has failed! I saw him fail three
thousand years ago!" Théoden sobbing: "No father should have to bury his
child" (or words to that effect"). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
expense, not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: "My
cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!"
Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me. As depicted in the book,
he is one of the most interesting characters in the whole epic. Cold,
calculating, overproud but convinced that he is acting for the best of his
country, and for a long time actually having done the best he could with a
really bad hand of cards. In the film version, he was reduced to a
stereotyped decadent Roman emperor who does not say a single memorable thing
(and there was any amount of great dialogue to choose from), and who spends
all his time eating, moaning, making stupid decisions or screaming: "Flee
for your lives!" And his end, which is horrifying in the book, is plain
silly in the film: "Denethor's burning leap" (through a convenient hole in
the citadel wall) is almost Pythonesque.
In the film, Denethor telling Faramir to try to regain control of the
crossings of Anduin is not obviously a bad decision. Doubtful, perhaps, but
not clearly moronic. In the film, that has turned into a command to Faramir
to commit suicide with his men, imparted while Denethor is eating chicken.

Öjevind
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282582 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 11:37
bredband.net  
"David Gray Porter" <portniek [at] earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:WjPhg.10442$921.5666 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Well, thanx, twerp.
>
> "Taemon" <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:4enrdpF1fgsojU1 [at] individual.net...
>> David Gray Porter wrote:
>>
>>> And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.
>>
>> And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
>> problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?
>
> Would you like me to insert a digit into an anonymous person's anal
> orifice?
> I'll use a "3." The esses make for easy insertion...
> Hey, weed, you might suggest a solution.
> Or am I putting wings on the Balrog?

I really don't think you need to get abusive to everybody who happens to
disagree with you. If that's your thing, I think you should start editing
articles in the Wikipedia instead. Just try to remember the 3RR guideline!

Öjevind
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282583 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 11:38
bredband.net  
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:S68hg.81601$wl.36497 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Count Menelvagor <Menelvagor [at] mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
>> "mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here" or "they are
>> gone. they left the havens long ago."
>
> Ooh! This could be fun!!
>
> Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

"Your wait may be long." (The man of Rohan who tells Háma that he thinks
Gandalf has left them in the lurch.)

Öjevind
Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #282584 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 11:42
bredband.net  
"phlip" <phlip2005 [at] gEEEmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:pan.2006.06.07.18.00.07.498449 [at] gEEEmail.com...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>> And in the film, Glorfindel was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't
>> he?
>
> Hasta la vista, Balrog!

:-D

But an Austrian Elf would spell his name "Glorfindl"!

Öjevind
Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #282586 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 17:06
Charilaos Velaris  
"Öjevind Lång" <bredband.net [at] ojevind.lang> a écrit dans le message de news:
4eq931F1f18klU1 [at] individual.net...
> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
> news:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...

> I agree. Criticizing Tolkien for not writing film script when he wrote
> LotR seems a bit weird to me. And I write as one who enjoyed Jackson's
> films but think they could have been much better.

....

(Of
> course, I do not mean to imply that the films could have been made
> completely without editing and minor plot changes.)

Actually, they could. It's just that nobody besides us would want to watch
them :-)

> I also thought a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens & Walsh
> really sucked. Elrond thundering: "Man has failed! I saw him fail three
> thousand years ago!" Théoden sobbing: "No father should have to bury his
> child" (or words to that effect"). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
> expense,

Agreed. But I really liked the scene between Aragorn and Arwen and their
conversation - in Sindarin (I had some very slight disagreements about the
pronunciation).

not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: "My
> cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!"

You may be right about the silliness of some of the comments (Gimli was not
so confident about Balin's fate), but I'd go with Jackson about the accent.
One of the problems with Dwarves speaking foreign languages was that they
excessively rolled their "R"s. The Eldar in particular took issue with this.
A Scottish accent is a good rendition of this effect in English.

> Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me. As depicted in the
> book, he is one of the most interesting characters in the whole epic.
> Cold, calculating, overproud but convinced that he is acting for the best
> of his country, and for a long time actually having done the best he could
> with a really bad hand of cards. In the film version, he was reduced to a
> stereotyped decadent Roman emperor who does not say a single memorable
> thing (and there was any amount of great dialogue to choose from), and who
> spends all his time eating, moaning, making stupid decisions or screaming:
> "Flee for your lives!" And his end, which is horrifying in the book, is
> plain silly in the film: "Denethor's burning leap" (through a convenient
> hole in the citadel wall) is almost Pythonesque.

Well, Denethor /is/ deranged at the end, though I agree that his end should
be more tragic than comic.

> In the film, Denethor telling Faramir to try to regain control of the
> crossings of Anduin is not obviously a bad decision. Doubtful, perhaps,
> but not clearly moronic. In the film, that has turned into a command to
> Faramir to commit suicide with his men, imparted while Denethor is eating
> chicken.

In effect, the counterattack on Sauron's forces /is/ suicide, though it
could be useful in gaining time. They should indeed have omitted the
chicken. :-)
Vorheriges Thema:AFter the Smell Has Gone
Nächstes Thema:Re: divers of middle earth
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:43:13 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05009 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered