Is anybody else here a Tolkien fan?

[Crunchy Frog]

I'm a really big fan of his books and would like to find other people to discuss them with.

Just so you know, I did not care for the movies at all.

[Longgrain]

1. I sure am!

Been reading Tolkien for years long before the movies.

I wouldn't see myself as being a full Tolkien Geek though, more like a Moderately advanced geek, in other words I know a little more about Middle Earth than most folks do, but not as much as some of the fanatics who've been studying Tolkien for years. For example, I know why you'll never see a Wose running naked through Druadan Forest, what used to be kept at the Tower of Amon Sul, who Luthein Tinuviel ran off with--and why the song was so significant to Elessar--and that Fangorn lives in Wellinghall.

Maybe Radagast will come along and join in the discussion. I think he might have missed the last boat to Faerie.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. I wouldn't call myself a Tolkien geek,

but I do read the books periodically, and really get deeply into it from time to time.

I doubt I would win a Tolkien trivia game, but I really like the broad underlying themes of the stories. I find them sort of comforting right now, in view of the dark times we're living through.

[Chovexani]

2. A huge Tolkien dork from back in the day.

And I adored the movies. :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Nothing wrong with liking the movies.

My sister absolutely adores them. Different people just have different tastes. I only made note of the fact so people would know that I wasn't really up for discussing the movies.

[Chovexani]

23. I understand.

It's all good. I was just worried it would turn into a "if you like the movies you're not a true Tolkien fan" thread...I've seen that happen a lot in the fandom. :(

Different strokes, ya know?

[deadparrot]

3. Yep.

But I have to be in the mood to read them. Some days I'm into reading a sixteen page description of a tree, and sometime I'm not. I read the LotR trilogy every summer when I can lay around and read at my leisure. Tolkien's perfect for extended breaks like that. :)

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I know exactly what you mean

about needing to be in the mood. :)

[RevolutionaryActs]

7. Me! I adore the books,

and once I get past the things they did wrong with the movies, I like them too.
I only read LOTR for the first time the summer before the first movie came out, but I have loved them ever since and have read them a quite a few times and I have the audio books which I pop in and listen to a lot.
:7


I think I'm what one would call, a LOTR geek, or nerd if you prefer. :)

[robbedvoter]

8. Haven't read the books - in spite of warm recommendations

It maybe the movies twarting the writing, but I had a real problem with the number of wars in it - and the entire glorifying of war (among some nice ideas)
Some told me "The Hobbit" is for small kids - so I checked it out - sure enough, a couple of wars there too.
So, if I am wrong, please set me right. I am looking for good books to read my kid and so far this ain't it (the movies scared her).
At the time being we read Harry Potter and "A Series of Unfortunate events"

[Crunchy Frog]

9. I really didn't care for the movies at all.

Yes, there is war in the books, but that isn't so much of the focus in the books as it was in the movies. I felt that the movies focused much more on the war aspect and anything violent or of an action/adventure nature.

If you don't want any war at all in your books, then stay away from them, but the books, much more than the movies, are really more focused on questions of good and evil and the nature and corrupting influence of power. They are also far more focused on character development. The characters and their relationships are much more developed and interesting. There is also alot of focus on various beings that he's created, their histories and societies and languages.

I wouldn't say that the books glorify war. They also are really about the price of war, and what it does to the people who live through it. Tolkien went through WWI and experienced it's horrors, as well as losing most of his friends in it. The novel sort of portrays PTSD at a time when it wasn't even recognized.

His imagery is very vivid, but he actually spends more time talking about trees, flowers and other plants than about war. He kind of paints an entire world, and makes it come alive.

Anyway, some people like it, some people don't. Alot of people liked the movies, I didn't. There's alot of personal taste involved.

I find that it resonates with me alot right now, just because of the nature of the times we're living through.

[RevolutionaryActs]

10. That was lovely recommendation!

If that doesn't make someone want to read it I don't what will, in fact, I want to go read it again now! lol :7

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Thank you.

I appreciate the appreciation.:7

[robbedvoter]

19. I don't "not want war" in my books. 100 Years of Solitude and

I Claudius are some of my all time favorites and there are wars in there.
But, besides the time spent on fights in the movies, I resented stuff like those ghosts cursed because they didn't fullfill their pledge to fight (I just remembered Poland) and all the "heroism" talk that made me stay away from news media.
What fascinated me in the movie though tas the Gollum. The writing, the acting and the creature special effect were absolutely on the same level of excellence. I liked a few more things in the movie - the scenery, some character moments...
Maybe I'll look at it some day - but it's not something I'd recommend my kid.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. I definitely agree it's not something for a kid

your daughter's age. It's often enjoyable for somewhat older children. I gave a copy to an 11 year old for Christmas a couple of years ago and she loved it, but I wouldn't recomend it for much younger. There's alot of stuff in the novel that's really more accessable to adults.

People of different age ranges and life experience will find different things in the novel that will interest them. It has a high level of complexity, and is many layered. The Gollum character in the book is extremely interesting and complex. I felt that the movie did a better job with him than it did with most of the other characters.

I find alot of meaning in it as an adult, but definitely wouldn't reccomend it as reading for a young child. It's at a much higher maturity level than The Hobbit.

I certainly wouldn't try to push you to read it, as it looks like you don't have a particularly strong interest in it, and it's nothing I want to argue about. There are alot of other good books and authors out there. Tolkien just happens to be a particular favorite of mine; an matter of personal taste.:)

I would also add that you really can't judge the books on the basis of what was in the movies, as they were really only loosely based on them.

[robbedvoter]

28. Actually, after reading some of the posts here, I just might

Gods know, I need the escape from reality!

[Crunchy Frog]

31. I need the escape from reality too,

that's why I expect to be reading alot more fantasy and sci-fi over the next few years.:)

[semillama]

36. how young a child?

I read them when I was eight...

and about once every two years since.

It took me until I was 30 before I tackled the Similrillion though!

[ashmanonar]

46. gollum was one of the best-portrayed characters in the movies.

you have good taste. :D

and the ghosts weren't so much cursed bc they refused to fight, but they didn't come to defend the rest of humanity. they were cowards. it's a matter of loyalty and honor, especially against an enemy like bus--i mean sauron...:D

[Lorien]

30. Add to that the power of friendship and the importance of

personal sacrifice. When I think of the books, I remember the characters and the world they live in. The war is someplace in the background. Peter Jackson puts the violence front and center, which is one of the reasons I objected to the films.

[eridani]

40. The movies did what movies usually do well--

--focus on the huge panoramas of action instead of the subtleties. An exception--the Gollum/Smeagol interaction they got exactly right.

You get a spectacular Balrog (way beyond what a verbal description can do) at the expense of character development.

[LWolf]

17. The books

deal with the eternal "light vs dark" battle, and there are battles. The book battles are not glorified war scenes, done for "action effect," like you find in the movies.

One difference would be the presence of "light." There is no light in the Lemony Snicket books. It's all dark.

There is violence, death (at least in HP), and a "dark" enemy in both HP and "Unfortunate Events;" just not the traditional "armies" fighting the battles.

I grew up reading Tolkein. It never made me want to strap on a sword and go out to battle; I think I "got" the reality of death and destruction inevitable in war. It did make me want to live in a land where the "light" prevailed.

[robbedvoter]

20. I like my light a bit more subtle in my books. In LOTR, I love

the light in Gollum more than the sainted simplicity of the hobbits - something about that bothers me ( ignorance as virtue?)
The light in Snicket is in the characters and the humorous commentary.
The light in Potter is in the characters as well.
I wasn't of course making the argument that Tolkien "makes readers violent" - I am not a wingnut. It's just that some of the things that are supposed to be "light" in that book, are not in mine.

[LWolf]

24. I'm intrigued.

I did find the commentary in the Snicket books humorous; that's why I made it to book 5, or wherever I stopped. Here is something totally bizarre, for me: I think it will make a better movie; I'm betting that the humor won't be quite as subtle, and the plot will balance better on the screen.

Definite light in the Potter characters; I had this discussion after school with a parent today. She was frustrated because "Dad" won't let son read the books because of "witchcraft," but will let him watch and read all kinds of other mindless, violent crap. The Potter books, IMO, are stories about what it means to be human, set in a "magical" setting.

And Tolkien.... I never thought of Gollum as "light," although I've pitied him. But your comparison reminds me that Gollum was/is a type of halfling/hobbit himself, and that Gollum and the Baggins' together showcase the seeds of potential in every individual, for good or ill. Back to what it means to be human!

I think the hobbits' simplicity is supposed to represent the inner child, so to speak. The innocence and clarity lost to people when they get "big."

In LOTR, the "light" that most attracted me came from Bombadil, who doesn't appear in the movies, and Treebeard, who's character was butchered appallingly on film. Not star players, but still well-loved by me.

[robbedvoter]

25. You may get me to read it yet. That was one good pitch.

[LWolf]

27. Glad you liked it.

;-)

Probably the thing to do would be to read them through yourself before making them a family read, should you decide to investigate.

[Lorien]

34. The hobbits aren't simple in the books

at least not the ones who embark on the quest. They are probably the most "human" of Tolkien's characters; brave but flawed, like any great protagonists. I don't know what is meant by "light"(not a term I ever heard used in screenwriting circles, for instance). Appealing? Humorous? Not sure. Frodo and Sam were both complex fully formed character's in Tolkien's books, but far less so in the films. Frodo, for instance, fights fiercely in the mines of Moria and against the ringwraiths in Tolkiens version, but is forever scrambling away in Jackson's. He's every bit as developed as Harry Potter (if not more so), with his own inner demons and shortcomings. Ultimately, Frodo fails and it's Sam who becomes the hero.

I don't see hobbits as representational of "inner children", but rather of modern pre-war Britons; they are the everyman, drawn into extraordinary events they can't control. They rise to the challenges, and as the other races of Middle Earth soon discover; their diminutive size doesn't match their considerable will and emotional strength.

[ashmanonar]

45. it's not the glorifying of battle and fighting that's interesting.

it's the abject description of war as terrible and destructive. tolkien was completely antiwar. ever read the silmarillion? full of death and destruction.

he lost a LOT of friends at the Somme, so i'm not surprised he didn't like war.

incidentally, i wouldn't recommend hobbit for a young kid...or the lotr series if you have any problems with depression, it hits kinda hard. dark and dangerous.

fits our modern times perfectly, methinks...

[LWolf]

11. I'm a lifelong fan.

I still have the original copies I first read in 1970.

I am ambivalent about the movies. I thought some parts were well done, and was horrified by others. The bottom line is that, while I could appreciate the parts I thought they got "right," Middle Earth has lived for too many decades in my head to give way to someone else's interpretation, or to marketing considerations.

For example, I have loved Treebeard since childhood, and was infuriated with the way they dumbed him down.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I felt that they really dumbed most of the characters down.

That was one of the aspects of the films that I really disliked. Not only dumbed them down, but lowered their overall quality, making them less brave, less noble, having less integrity, etc. I hated what they did with the Ents and I was spitting nails at what they did to Faramir.

I really felt the film was more about Peter Jackson's vision about what the story should have been if it had been done "right", than it was about putting accross Tolkien's vision. Some people will say that means that I think they should have done a 30 hr movie with every single thing exactly the way it is in the book, but that isn't what I mean.

Well, I won't say anymore. I've seen flamewars on other boards started by someone saying they didn't like the movies. I really don't have anything against them, they just don't do it for me.

My sister is also a big Tolkien fan and she absolutely loves the movies. I don't have any problem with that. There's obviously stuff in there that resonates with her and not with me.

[RevolutionaryActs]

14. I love the movies,

but only AS movies, I think the production and the acting and the scenery were very lovely. AS adaptations of Tolkien books, they're not that good lol.

I hate what they did to Faramir too! Considering he was one of my favorite characters, the fact they had him as being "tempted" by the ring drives me mad! I could throttle Peter Jackson for that (just like Gullom throttles fishes ;))

The Ents were so... small, and cartoony. Hated it.

Something that broke my heart, was when I went to see The Two Towers (which was the most disappoint, since its the one that differs most from the books) but anyway when I went to see that and Gollum and Smeagol were having their argument, its something that was heart breaking in the book and also very powerful in the books. They made silly and cartoonish. I was so sad when I was watching that and heard a lot of the people laughing at it.

One thing that was cool was when I looked around the theater and could see some people who I would expect to be book fans looking as horrified as I was.


Edited to add: I'm so glad you made this thread! I love it. :D

[robbedvoter]

21. The Gollum-Smeagol argument was my favorite part in the movie

[LWolf]

15. Faramir was also on my list

of peeves.

During my adolescent years, I really, really wanted to migrate permanently to Middle Earth to live; it felt more "home" to me than my own world did. ;-)

[Bridget Burke]

16. I read the trilogy back when the paperbacks first came out.

Several times, in fact. Studied a bit of Medieval literature & went off in the Arthurian direction--myth, legend, anthropology, etc. When I heard the movies were coming out, I re-read the books again & remembered why I liked them in the first place. Washed out the bad taste of all the third-rate Tolkien wannabees.

I just read the Silmarillion & will begin on the other Christopher Tolkien anthologies pretty soon.

Would love to go into Tolkien as literature, but I liked the movies as well. So I'll check back later to see if the thread has evolved from "why I don't like Peter Jackson".

[bullimiami]

18. of course.

how could you not be?

[MrSlayer]

26. Yeah, Tolkien turned me on to fantasy when I was a little kid.

The Hobbit and LOTR were my favorites when I was a little kid until the Dragonlance series came out. I still read LOTR once a year and hated the movies.

[Lorien]

29. My user name betrays me

I've been a fan since 1976, when I first read "the Hobbit" as a child. I read LOTR a few years later, and again in my late teens...then recently in my late 30s. I've have a whole new perspective on them every time I've read them.

I'm also not a big fan of the films. The first one was fine (except for the changes to the story that Jackson made), but the other two were just too much of a departure from the spirit of Tolkien's works.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. I love your username!

I could have gone with a Tolkien influenced one, but ended up with the Monty Python influenced one instead. I have I wide range of tastes.:)

I didn't read anything by Tolkien until I was 18. I read LOTR right after seeing the first movie, and since I hadn't read it in about 10 years, it was almost like reading it for the first time again. I can always discover new little verbal treasures that I hadn't noticed before. I just love Tolkien's way with language.

Somehow the story seems more topical today than it has in the past when I've read it.

[Lorien]

33. Another Python fan here too

and Blackadder, Eddie Izzard, Vicar of Dibley, Chef!, Keeping up appearances, Faulty towers, etc., etc. My best friend was British growing up, and I guess her family's quirky sense of humor just rubbed off on me. :-)

Yes, I think Tolkien is every bit as topical today as it was during it's first heyday (the early 1970s). The anti-war, pro-tolerance (elves/ dwarves feuds, etc.) pro-environment message should be getting a bit more notice. Unfortunately, Jackson's version seems to twist things enough in the minds of the less literate that many see the trilogy as an endorsement of the "war on Terra", which is a sad thing.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. My family spent a year in Oxford when I

was growing up, and I think that had alot to do with my developing a taste for British culture. Although I was at boarding school at the time so I only got to be in England over Christmas and summer vacation.

The thing that I find most topical about LOTR is the issue of power, and its corrupting influence. I see the Ring as sort of embodying absolute power. The most powerful and admirable characters in the book are all offered the ring, or are in a position where they could easily take it, but they understand that they could not handle the power that it would give them, and they turn it down. I especially like what Galadrial says when Frodo asks her to take it.

I sort of feel like this country has grabbed hold of the Ring, and is travelling down the path of darkness and evil with it. This is the first time in modern history that a single country has had so much power without any external checks, and it's destroying us.

That's how I see it anyway. I may be completely full of it though.

As far as some people seeing it as an endorsement of the "War on Terra", I saw part of a PBS special on LOTR awhile ago that I had to turn off when they explicitly compared the coalition going into Iraq to the Fellowship.:puke:

[blindpig]

37. signing in

first read in the late 60's, probably read em 30 times now. I'd probably do OK in a trivia contest.

The movies were OK but NOT LOTR. I was severely disappointed, such promise.....................

I like the Silmarillion damn near as much as LOTR, which only proves that I'm a history junkie.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Welcome to the club!

Do you think I should start a new thread, maybe on some specific aspect of the books?

[blindpig]

39. well, you could find out how hard core this crowd is

by starting a thread discussing say, the political relations of the Elves of Valinor. That will separate the wheat from the chaff......
or my favorite bugbear; whatever happened to the Entwives?

[Phillycat]

41. Oh, yeah.

I just reread the trilogy this past weekend--all 1000+ pages of it. It's still great. :)

[luaneryder]

42. I've read the Trilogy, oh, 25+ times

[Withywindle]

43. Coming late to the party again...

My username betrays me as well.

[ashmanonar]

44. lol.

that's like stepping into a sports bar in chicago and asking "is anybody else here a bears fan?"

and in answer to your question, yes, yes i am. i'm a tolkien nut. a fanatic. a scholar.

i took a class in it.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. You took a class in it?

I'd be really curious to hear more about that.

Sorry about taking so long to respond to your post. I only pop in here every so often.

[atreides1]

48. Been a fan since the sixth grade

I first read The Hobbit as part of my english class, then went on to the LOTR, and the Silmarilion.

The movies could have been done better, if Jackson had stayed on the course set by Tolkien, and had not gone off on his own in so many places.

I missed Tom Bombadil as well as the twin sons of Elrond, and the company of Rangers that travel with Aragorn along the Paths of the Dead, and the Reckoning of the Shire.

[Orsino]

49. Loved Hobbit & LotR...

...but the Silmarillion failed to engage me.

Tolkien's style is very dry, reading like a poorly-translated historical saga. This is exactly as he intended, I believe, and it works. I think Peter Jackson's movies took a few too many liberties, but did a magnificent job of humanizing the characters--and the look is right out of my imagination.

I have come to think of the movies, mostly, as the way things actually happened, as the books as the saga written long afterward.

[Bridget Burke]

50. Any Tolkien fans in or near Houston?

The travelling Lord of the Rings exhibit opens at our Natural Science Museum on June 1st.

www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_exhibits/the_lord_of_the_rings.asp

Peter Jackson said that he knew not all fans would be happy with plot changes--but he & his crew took great pains with the "look" of the movies. Here's a chance to see costumes, weapons, jewelry etc.

[blindpig]

51. I'm re-reading Bored of the Rings

Have not seen it since it came out, my copy lost in the Loan Zone. Could not believe my local library had it. What a hoot, it's as funny as I remember and survives the dating pretty well. I'll still lift a phrase from it every now and then.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. I love Bored of the Rings.

An ex friend of mine made off with my old copy, but there's a new edition of it that came out around the time the first movie was released. Sadly, it lacks the original's cover art, which was a magnificant parody of the cover art of the originally released paperbacks, but it's still a good read.

Nice to see another fan.:)