TLGN Bookclub: The Fellowship of the Ring
Mar. 2nd, 2013 11:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lunabee34After re-reading The Hobbit in preparation for the movie, I decided it was time to read LotR again since it's been more than a decade since I last read the series.
As always, enter at your own caution. Nerd lightning predicted.
The Fellowship of the Ring
Let's start with positive and/or neutral comments:
1. I hadn't realized the degree to which I had conflated the movies with the books.
1a. I had forgotten that the books characterize the hobbits as adult in contrast to the way they're presented in the movies. Part of me really likes the youthful, playful mischievousness of the movieverse hobbits, but I also like the more grown-up versions we get in the book.
1b. I like that Merry and Pippin make deliberate decisions to come with Frodo on his quest in contrast to the way they merely fall into it almost as a lark in the film. I like that they're more discerning than Frodo believes and that they understand from the outset the desperate and dangerous nature of what Frodo must do.
1c. I had forgotten it takes like two hundred pages for them to even leave the Shire. LOL
2. I love that Sam is a poet and a student of lore. That is entirely absent from his characterization in the movies (except for the bit where he composes a tiny lament for Gandalf in Lothlorien), and I think it makes his character so much more wonderfully complex to give arguably the most practical and down to earth character in the whole series this vivid imagination and discernment.
3. We get a much clearer picture of the Shire in the book, and I like seeing the slices of life that Tolkien gives us. We hear from a variety of minor characters and get to know the landscape in a way that we don't in the movies.
And now for the more negative comments:
1. There are four women in TFotR. In order of appearance, they are Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (whose appearance takes up roughly a paragraph total of the entire story and who is depicted as a bitter and grasping crone), Goldberry (who merits about two pages worth of text and who says and does very little; she's beautiful and otherworldly and inspires poetic speech in the hobbits and seems to be able to make it rain), Arwen (who gets maybe three sentences total in the text and says and does nothing), and Galadriel (who is undeniably bad-ass and actually gets to talk and stuff). I gather that Tolkien had "reasons" for not writing about women or viewing them as necessary components of his narrative; I guess I just don't give a shit. LOL The total sausage fest is more than a little disappointing.
2. Boromir's character seems really flat to me in the book. I don't feel like his conflict is rendered very well in the text, especially since he's the only one who's tempted like at all to take the ring. He just seems to be pretty much a weak jerk in comparison to the others. In the movie, Boromir comes across as extremely sympathetic, as a dude who fears for the safety of his kingdom and isn't necessarily in the mood to trust the pronouncements of elves and wizards who, as far as he can tell, are tucked up all safe-like in their magic valley instead of risking their lives on the front lines of Mordor. He's also not sure about this random dude who says he's the King but might not be and could potentially usurp his family's power. I've already started reading the next book, and I can't tell you how disappointed I was that his deathbed speech to Aragorn is a creation of Peter Jackson.
3. I don't think the mutual affection Sam and Frodo feel for one another comes across very well in at least this first book. That may change as I go forward in the series.
4. So far in my re-reading of this series, I have found Peter Jackson's films far superior to the original books. Tolkien's books are wonderful at world-building and plot; they lay out a fantastic universe of magic and an epic struggle between good and evil. But as far as character goes? Humor? Emotion? Kinda leaves me flat. It reminds me of when I read "Brokeback Mountain" after watching the movie and was surprised to find the short story more of a template of a story than anything else--a powerful template and certainly necessary for the movie to exist, but an outline that the movie built on to such powerful and superior effect. That's exactly how I feel about LotR. The world is undeniably Tolkien's, and the movies couldn't exist without him. But as far as making me cry or laugh or care deeply about the characters and what happens to them? That's all Peter Jackson's films.
As always, enter at your own caution. Nerd lightning predicted.
The Fellowship of the Ring
Let's start with positive and/or neutral comments:
1. I hadn't realized the degree to which I had conflated the movies with the books.
1a. I had forgotten that the books characterize the hobbits as adult in contrast to the way they're presented in the movies. Part of me really likes the youthful, playful mischievousness of the movieverse hobbits, but I also like the more grown-up versions we get in the book.
1b. I like that Merry and Pippin make deliberate decisions to come with Frodo on his quest in contrast to the way they merely fall into it almost as a lark in the film. I like that they're more discerning than Frodo believes and that they understand from the outset the desperate and dangerous nature of what Frodo must do.
1c. I had forgotten it takes like two hundred pages for them to even leave the Shire. LOL
2. I love that Sam is a poet and a student of lore. That is entirely absent from his characterization in the movies (except for the bit where he composes a tiny lament for Gandalf in Lothlorien), and I think it makes his character so much more wonderfully complex to give arguably the most practical and down to earth character in the whole series this vivid imagination and discernment.
3. We get a much clearer picture of the Shire in the book, and I like seeing the slices of life that Tolkien gives us. We hear from a variety of minor characters and get to know the landscape in a way that we don't in the movies.
And now for the more negative comments:
1. There are four women in TFotR. In order of appearance, they are Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (whose appearance takes up roughly a paragraph total of the entire story and who is depicted as a bitter and grasping crone), Goldberry (who merits about two pages worth of text and who says and does very little; she's beautiful and otherworldly and inspires poetic speech in the hobbits and seems to be able to make it rain), Arwen (who gets maybe three sentences total in the text and says and does nothing), and Galadriel (who is undeniably bad-ass and actually gets to talk and stuff). I gather that Tolkien had "reasons" for not writing about women or viewing them as necessary components of his narrative; I guess I just don't give a shit. LOL The total sausage fest is more than a little disappointing.
2. Boromir's character seems really flat to me in the book. I don't feel like his conflict is rendered very well in the text, especially since he's the only one who's tempted like at all to take the ring. He just seems to be pretty much a weak jerk in comparison to the others. In the movie, Boromir comes across as extremely sympathetic, as a dude who fears for the safety of his kingdom and isn't necessarily in the mood to trust the pronouncements of elves and wizards who, as far as he can tell, are tucked up all safe-like in their magic valley instead of risking their lives on the front lines of Mordor. He's also not sure about this random dude who says he's the King but might not be and could potentially usurp his family's power. I've already started reading the next book, and I can't tell you how disappointed I was that his deathbed speech to Aragorn is a creation of Peter Jackson.
3. I don't think the mutual affection Sam and Frodo feel for one another comes across very well in at least this first book. That may change as I go forward in the series.
4. So far in my re-reading of this series, I have found Peter Jackson's films far superior to the original books. Tolkien's books are wonderful at world-building and plot; they lay out a fantastic universe of magic and an epic struggle between good and evil. But as far as character goes? Humor? Emotion? Kinda leaves me flat. It reminds me of when I read "Brokeback Mountain" after watching the movie and was surprised to find the short story more of a template of a story than anything else--a powerful template and certainly necessary for the movie to exist, but an outline that the movie built on to such powerful and superior effect. That's exactly how I feel about LotR. The world is undeniably Tolkien's, and the movies couldn't exist without him. But as far as making me cry or laugh or care deeply about the characters and what happens to them? That's all Peter Jackson's films.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-07 02:32 pm (UTC)I need to read these soon.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-07 10:50 pm (UTC)The Sam thing surprised *me* and I've read the books at least twice before. LOL The practical part is still there in the books and still foregrounded, but there's definitely more to Sam than what we see in the movies.