LOTR: Just finish it already!

So I've been reading the LOTR trilogy again now having seen all three movies. Some purists (I'm looking at YOU TM) might lament that 'unfortunate' sequence of events. "OH, it's too bad you didn't read the books first, because the books are so much more vast than the movies!" &tc. Truth be told, the movies helped me get a grasp of the world as a whole. The books were so filled with directions I couldn't figure out where things were in relation to each other. The movie helped me get a sense of the world as Tolkien imagined it.

However I generally read books (for pleasure) the same way a starving man sits down to a prime rib dinner: quickly and without abandon. I swallow each page like a forkful of mashed potatoes and medium-rare steak, words dripping through my mind like gravy through the tines of a fork. I devour the words, page upon page turning and glossing over and pouring over the appendices when they appear in footnotes...

... and short on details sometimes. All those songs Mr. Tolkien undoubtedly spent lots of time crafting? Er, yeah, I kind of skipped over those. Tom Bombadill? Yeah, um, right. Geography of Middle Earth? Heavens. So I felt that I owed it to myself to reread the books and get all the juicy details, see how the movies deviated from the book, and delve further into the world.

From this second reading some of my original opinions on the story have changed. For example, I no longer though the sequence in the Barrowdowns and with Tom Bombadill to be irrelevant. However one opinion I held from the first reading has only been cemented with the second: Mr. Tolkien , while an amazingly gifted creator, was not a storyteller.

INFIDEL you cry. BLASPHEMER escapes your lips as you swoon. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm mired in the last 150 pages of the story, and it's so incredibly obvious that Tolkein just didn't know how to end the tale. I think the ending, specifically, the very last sentence in the book is fantastic, superb, perfect! But the whole winding down of the tale is excruciating. Excruciating suffering of the characters, excruciating detail of the landscape of Mordor, excruciating EVERYTHING. The bits I would have loved to have read more about were glossed over, like the romance of Eowyn and Faramir (don't get me started on Tolkein's handling of romance in this novel) or the coronation of Aragorn or Legolas and his yearning for the sea. Rather he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time describing the brackish water of the only stream in Mordor, the long thorns on the wretched bushes in the vales, the distance to Mt. Doom from where Sam and Frodo are and every single day spend it told in mind-numbing detail (wow, yet ANOTHER day where they crawl along the vale through thorns and bush and nothing happens.)

Much like a child who hedges and procrastinates washing up before going to bed, Mr. Tolkien holds tightly to the story by obsessing over trivial details and it drives me batty. Not so much the details themselves rather the sense that the story WILL NEVER END. I suppose that might be what he was going after, getting the reader to empathize with Frodo and his seemingly unending quest but I don't think that plopping the reader in such a predicament is the way to do it.

I'm not advocating for an editorial change to the books. I think they should stay exactly the way they are now. However, that doesn't mean that I can't look to the heavens every once in a while and wish for my own Star of Elendil to guide me out of the tale.

Comments

[piggy]

Hmm... I should probably read those some time, eh? You can understand though that in my current situation, I'm a little back logged.

Congrats on finishing it last night. You could have woke me and let me know though! ;O)

[TomatoMan]

"Some purists (I'm looking at YOU TM)"

Hey HEY now!! Remember, I committed the ultimate blasphemy (which I stick by) that the story told in the movie is actually an improvement of the story in the books in several regards.

I didn't mind the "crush of detail" about Mordor and the long ending - I found the film to really have glossed over and sped that part up more than I would have liked. Your soul is supposed to be withered by the time Frodo and Sam reach the mountain. and the ending is supposed to be hugely tragic - which, thankfully, the film did get SOME of (but not quite enough for my tastes - holding out hope for the extended edition and NOT READING SPOILERS).

And isn't it just like a chick to want more romance? (ducks)

I agree that Tolkien was not a storyteller/author. He was a professor with an interest in history, language and literature, and while he singlehandedly birthed the entire fantasy genre - everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that you know as "fantasy" is footnotes to Tolkien, and I'll go to the mat with anyone over that - but he wasn't really a writer in that sense. I also got hopelessly lost in the geography, and after 20-some readings and zillions of film viewings I'm /stilll/ not completely clear on it.

But what a treat the whole thing was, and is.

[Michael]

... the story told in the movie is actually an improvement of the story in the books in several regards.

I didn't mind the "crush of detail" about Mordor and the long ending ... Your soul is supposed to be withered by the time Frodo and Sam reach the mountain.

You and I are like matter and anti-matter.

The movies are great, but they only dimly reflect the richness of the books. (I don't mean that the movies failed to include all the books' details, which would be a silly complaint. I mean that Jackson didn't understand all of what he read.)

Also, the (book) slog through Mordor withers the reader's soul by brute infliction of tedium. Tolkien's descriptive imagination failed him there.

... the ending is supposed to be hugely tragic ...

The final ending (at the ships) was tragic? Or do you mean an earlier part?

The most tragic sequence in the book is the death of Aragorn and then Arwen, but Tolkien "hid" it in an appendix. I was pleasantly surprised that Jackson included a "flash-forward" to at least part of it.

LotR aside, I predict King Kong will pwn us all. Great CGI beasties mean no more unintentional animatronic comedy!

[TomatoMan]

You and I are like matter and anti-matter.

I know. Doesn't it rule?

I'm still waiting for One to take me to task for my comment about chickz0rs. Can't I fool anyone anymore?

[Michael]

I'm the one with the pretty collar:

link

[One]

I've been debating whether or not to comment on my own site, but I'm starting to think that I'm overthinking things so Meh, comment I shall. :^)

And isn't it just like a chick to want more romance? (ducks)
Like my mamma always said, "Don't feed the trolls." 'Sides, my record of Jackie Chan and Indiana Jones in my "Likes" column saves me from the stereotypical "chix0rs" moniker, thankyouverymuch.

Michael I would hesitate to pin a perceived lack of understanding on Jackson. With something like this I think it especially prudent to spare a thought for the executives who haven't read the books, rely on a three page summary from their secretaries, and insist that there has to be a physical villian in the movie, so a flaming eyeball it is. (I cringed when that searchlight swept over Mordor and nearly pinned down Sam and Frodo. A searchlight? Come on folks...)

[Michael]

Hesitate all you like. I won't because I believe Jackson had nearly unlimited creative control. The effing Searchlight of Mordor is all Jackson.

And the Elvish Commandos at Helm's Deep? Jackson has no idea how elves figure in the larger story, so he just uses them as walking special effects.

Jackson even admitted he left out the Scouring of the Shire because it bored him. Since he thinks LotR is "Stand By Me" with hobbits, this probably makes sense.

Jackson's version of Tolkien reminds me of something Bertrand Russell said: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

[One]

Well, it looks like you have a deeper understanding of how the movie was made than I do, so I'll cede the point. I'm only drawing on my experiences on creative projects where aspects of the finished goods were neither creative nor particularly good, but the client was happy and so I got paid. For a movie like this I was willing to give Jackson and his folks some slack because good things can be ruined by slack-jawed idiots who hold pursestrings.

The Elvish archers at Helms Deep didn't bother me in the least, as a matter of fact I thought them a nice gesture. I think it lends greater drama to the story: Elves and Men, fighting one last time in an effort to save the lives of the Rohirrim. It has a noble ring and ties in somewhat nicely with the opening squences in FOTR with Elrond and Isuldir (sp?). I think it enriches the story for the lay moviegoers (those who haven't read the books.) Walking special effects? *shrug* can't say one way or the other but the solidarity implied with the arrival of the elven archers heightened the drama of the scene (at least for me; YMMV.)

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
Look, I'm no Bertrand Russell scholar, but it seems to me that idea applies to anybody who reports anything but an exact transcription of what was said. Smart or stupid, people always throw their own spin on something they hear when they relay it to other people. But that's another post.

[610]

he singlehandedly birthed the entire fantasy genre - everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that you know as "fantasy" is footnotes to Tolkien

Most of the crap, yeah, (LotR is awesome. Most crappy fantasy is a crappy attempt to imitate it.) Maybe even most stuff written after LotR was published. But EVERYTHING?

Lovecraft. Dunsany. Moorcock. Howard. Lieber.

There are more fantasy authors, Horatio....

[Loody]

You know what - I completely agree with you, and I've never managed to read the book, only dip in to it... That said, I love the bits I read but I could never read it all so I could never really piece the 'world' together. Glad you feel similar!

[One]

Loody, I should have been clearer in my initial post: my frustration was with the last journey through Mordor to Mt. Doom, not the whole story itself (re-reading my post I realize I was woefully generic.) For me the wonder and delight of the stories comes from the amazing detail and thought Tolkein put into the books, not necessarily in HOW he tells the story. :^)

Michael: I'm reading the appendices right now for the first time, and I LOVE them. Some of the geneaology I skim truth be told (it's like reading the Old Testament at spots ;^) but it's wonderful. Perhaps I'll suck up the courage to tackle the The Silmarillion next.

[Michael]

This is how I reacted when I read about this:

"It's the Return of the King - and this time he's singing"

Reminds me (and a guy named "Scott") of some dialog from "The Tall Guy":

Agent: Well, the only other thing at the moment is a new musical that the RSC are doing.
Dexter: Er, what's it about?
Agent: The Elephant Man.
Dexter: A musical of the Elephant Man? What's it called?
Agent: "Elephant", I think - with an exclamation mark presumably.
Dexter: Pity the poor bastard who has to play the elephant.
Agent: Remember dearest, everyone thought Jesus Christ Superstar was a stupid idea.
Dexter: Jesus Christ Superstar WAS a stupid idea.

___

I like the Silmarillion more than LotR, and Narn I Hîn Húrin (from Unfinished Tales) most of all.