Thread: Changing LOTR
I entirely agree, Eryan. That is also why I like prose over poetry.
Get rid of Sam, he's a pillock. And make Sauron a more visible bad guy so's we get a decent showdown at the end, James Bond stylee.
Ok, here we go again! (Plastic's comment on Sam was the reason why I joined this forum in the first place)
I would leave Sam in. Why? You can find more than enough reasons in the Sam-section of 'characters'. No need to repeat them here.
But Plast, if you want Sam out, how on (Middle) Earth is Frodo supposed to reach Mount Doom? How would you change that?
Plastic will find a way, believe me. But I'd leave Sam in too. Who would I leave out, let's see... Don't know really. I don't think I'd leave anything out, everything is too necessary, if you know what I mean.
Psssst... I'll let you all in on a secret, I don't hate Sam that much, I just love you guys when you react to it.
And Frodo would be dragged to Mount Doom by Gollum, who he would control through the power of the ring, now THAT would be a story worth telling...
Hey Plast, what a relief! So there is still some hope for you!
Why don't you give your new ending a shot in the Writers Guild? Eryan opend a topic there about imagining new plots in the Tolkien world. I would surely like to read it.
But... but... that would mean doing some work!!!!
I admit that I would like to see more of Elladan and Elrohir
In everything, I want MORE DETAIL. I want specific descriptions of what the characters look like (eg: long nose, big round eyes, large feet, small feet, pointy ears, rounded ears, in-between ears, dimples, beards, hairdos, freckles, scars, pimples...and so on).
Now that I have gotten used to it, I kind of like the Arwen expansion thing. I think even Tolkien himself is probably viewing it and saying "Hmmm....not a bad idea. Why didn't I think of that?"
Spyderbyte, there is a class dealing specifically with Tolkien? Where do you live, so that I can move there and enrol?
I believe that Tolkien left a lot of the story (descriptionwise) to his readers on purpose. He did not subscribe to the Homeric type of writing where you have an aside for 5 pages describing a scar and how it was received when the only real reference to the scar is in the recongnition of the character by a servant and it is not important how the scar came about or anything. Tolkien's form of description appeals to readers because they have to make up their own descriptions as they go along. Now I do love "super-detailing," but there are some pieces of work that just don't need it or if they have it, it is subtle almost subconscious as are Tolkien's details.
As for your question about where I go to school. I am a student at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, KY and am enrolled in an Honors Section on the the life and works of Tolkien and his influences. A very interesting class to say the least. There are actually two sections, one for English majors and one for those like me who just want to take the class. They are exactly the same course, but for political sakes they have to be classified under different categories.
I don't like details too much either. You'd have pages and pages and pages waisted with description. It gets in the way of the story, so I'm with you here spydyrbyte.
Would love to read the story though...
I like details. I like to know that Bilbo had nasturtiums in his garden, and Tom Bombadil and Goldberry had beans with red flowers. And that bees in Beorns' bee pastures were foraging on clover. All these details make the story alive!
But details would make it un-Tolkien like. And it would uneccesarily lengthen the book. I mean, who cares what flowers Bilbo had in his garden? Let's discuss it, so we can have some fun, right?
Welcome to the forum Anilorak.
We wouldn't actually change a thing in Tolkien's books, unless maybe to make them longer and increase their number; and old JRR would have to do all the writing.
What you have been reading here about changes, is merely idle speculation, except for the following comments by all the people taking umbrage with what I have written here today.
... it would be really fun to read "additional" stories about the Lord of the Rings which would fill up the many cracks and spaces.
Or as the hobbits are want to say, "a little more to fill up the corners."
You kiddin? Change? The feelings that Tolkien was feeling at the time and the atmosphere he was in is very in the book. How can you change something like that. Oh and the SAM thing. You need Sam in there, he shows loyalty and companionship and what it is to be a true friend. Having Sam around also gives Frodo more hope. But as I was saying, this book and the movie is too great to get edited over minor and major details. This is not possible. Everything Tolkien wrote in the book, led to another. If you change one little thing, then you're changing the whole book.
I didn't want anything about the story to change or be added, I just wanted Tolkien to have written more stories about these characters in their earlier and later lives. And also to have written one to flesh out the 'War of the Ring' as played out by the free peoples (Elves, Dwarves, and Men) that took place in the northern area between the Misty Mountains and the Lonely Mountain and extending the length of Mirkwood. More would have been better.
"The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short." -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from the foreward to the second edition.
I think the problem with Tolkien's work is that he made a rod for his own back by being so detailed in everything he wrote. Unlike most other postAuthorIDs, he spent a lifetime not just writing a novel, but creating an entire world and its history.
Most other books don't recieve the sort of scrutiny for fine details that Tolkien's works recieve, because the reader accepts they are just reading a piece of fiction. Because there is so much depth to Tolkien's works, however, readers become used to researching deeper and deeper into what was written and then become disappointed when they reach the limits of his written universe.
I, myself, sometimes forget that I am reading a piece of fiction, and in pursuit of details sometimes have the impression I am searching for some detail about Ancient History. Unfortunately, unlike Ancient History where archeological digs can discover more facts, there are definite limits to what Tolkien wrote, and no amount of searching will uncover areas that he did not cover. It's a shame, but at least he did leave a vast wealth of information for us to dig into.
Well put Valedhegwath. Tolkien answered inquiries from fans up to shortly before his death in 1973. In essence, with these letters he continued to create more detail adding to the perception that ME could actually have existed because there seemed to be no limit to the information available. Alas Tolkien was mortal and now there are questions which will never be answered. Personally, I'd rather leave it that way. It is fun to speculate, however, it is Tolkien's world and information people dig up that did not come from his pen is false information. Kind of an oxymoron really.
Great point there Val! I totally agree! And with Rednell too, by the way.
The only thing which might be changed in LOTR is the question of relationship between Theoden and his son Theodred. I think that Theoden is not sad enough so soon after the death of his son and heir...
I think it is perfect just the way it is.We talk in here,and retalk andreretalk but in the end,when you pick the books,sit down and begin reading,you can see all the talk was in vain:it is all the way it should be:some empty spaces,for the readersd to dream,some strange interventions for the story to keep its vitality and not bore and,finally,the great 'all' that we love and,maybe,worship.My opinion is that Tolkien's greatest fault is that the silmarillion is too vague-its stories are rather short and so much of Middle-Earth lies beneath their rows...I wish he had lived 200 years.
I entirely agree, it is a pity that "Silmarillion" stories are not so detailed as LOTR. But you must remember that they were initially written as poetry, not as a novel or a set of stories!!!!
Much is said about the influence of Tolkien on C. S. Lewis, but what about the influence of C. S. Lewis on Tolkien? Is it possible that Tolkien switched to that modern, detailed style of writing at least partly under the influence of C. S. Lewis?
A lot of you have written that Tolkien didn't add a lot of details, i.e. color of Legolamb's hair, etc. One of my friends couldn't read LotR because it was "too descriptive and full of details" for him to understand and like the plot. What do you think about that?
I think he spent a great deal of time describing the landscape. Just not so much time on the people.
If I were the editor, I would mix up books 3 and 4. A couple of chapters of Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli; some chapters of Sam, Frodo, Gollum; Back to Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli. I got sick and tired of Frodo's wanderings towards the end of TTT.
I too would have alternated heroes every other chapter in TTT; however, that is just my personal preference. And I guess that just goes to show that we aren't the literary geniuses of Tolkien's caliber.
Much as we dislike the waiting around to see what happened to whoever we weren't reading about, you've got to admit, it kept us all reading didn't it? You'd have found it a lot easier to put it down if you found out sooner.
I noticed PJ also jumped from hero to hero in his movies keeping the timeline of history more contemporary, but your point is well taken Plastic Squirrel.