|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 2, 2019 17:20:09 GMT -5
So, here's a tough question that my wife asked me a few days back: Who is your favourite character in Tolkien's legendarium? After wrestling with this for about a week or so -- because there are just...so...many...great characters to choose from -- I'm torn between Aragorn/Strider and Gandalf. But, if there's a gun to my head and I can only pick one, I'm gonna go with Gandalf because he's just such an interesting, wise, and generally well-rounded character. I really like Frodo and Bilbo a whole lot too, but they're not my favourites. Samwise Gamgee is a really great character, but I have to be honest and say that I kinda find him slightly annoying at times. Merry and Pippin are good, but kinda forgettable, despite having some wonderful scenes in LOTRs. Gimli, Legolas and Gollum are all brilliant characters too, but yeah...I'm gonna pin my colours to the mast and say "Gandalf". How about you? Who's your #1 favourite? My two favorites have always been odd ones: Tom Bombadil and Treebeard. If you were(as you put it) to put a gun to my head and say I could only pick one though I think I'd go with good ol' Tom; he's not as active in the story as Treebeard was but I loved the myth and mystery that Tolkien cloaked Tom in.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 3, 2019 11:57:15 GMT -5
Beorn Of the main protagonists, I think it would be Strider/Aragorn, but if we are including the whole gamut of Middle Earth, it's Beorn the changeling/werebear/berserker/? -M Beorn is definitely a top contender for me as well for much the same reasons I listed for Tom; I love that we don't really know too much about Beorn and that although he helps the heroes on two occasions his motivations for doing so are his own.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 3, 2019 17:37:42 GMT -5
I don’t know if I have a favourite, but Tulkas kicks serious @$$. As in “Melkor’s @$$”.
I also like Huor; he was a straight arrow, and not a whiny $# like Turin. Good, regular bloke and a brave one too.
And naturally... Earendil saved Middle Earth. His reward was a little like a punishment, though!
So many characters, so many interesting fates!
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 3, 2019 20:10:37 GMT -5
I don’t know if I have a favourite, but Tulkas kicks serious @$$. As in “Melkor’s @$$”. I also like Huor; he was a straight arrow, and not a whiny $# like Turin. Good, regular bloke and a brave one too. And naturally... Earendil saved Middle Earth. His reward was a little like a punishment, though! So many characters, so many interesting fates! Given his fate I think Huor would be a little hurt about being compared to an arrow
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 3, 2019 20:29:23 GMT -5
I don’t know if I have a favourite, but Tulkas kicks serious @$$. As in “Melkor’s @$$”. I also like Huor; he was a straight arrow, and not a whiny $# like Turin. Good, regular bloke and a brave one too. And naturally... Earendil saved Middle Earth. His reward was a little like a punishment, though! So many characters, so many interesting fates! Given his fate I think Huor would be a little hurt about being compared to an arrow The pun was intended, I am ashamed to admit!
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 4, 2019 15:46:22 GMT -5
Given his fate I think Huor would be a little hurt about being compared to an arrow The pun was intended, I am ashamed to admit! I just had to explain to my wife why this was funny and she just rolled her eyes and called me a nerd.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 8, 2019 18:25:59 GMT -5
I got excited about an article purporting to reveal what the new series will and will not be allowed to do...but it didn't say anything we didn't already know; it's set in the second age and will heavily feature the Numenoreans.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 21, 2019 0:44:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this really answers the question, but I might be tempted to say Sauron: not as a character in the usual sense - i.e. a fictional persona whose psychology we find interesting or that comes alive as a personality we enjoy hearing about or spending time with as a reader - but as an important, perhaps the most important in some respects element or thread in the marvellous tapestry Tolkien wove for us (the entire work was named after him, after all).
Sauron not only drives the whole plot, but also is the most important single factor behind the atmosphere of dread and menace that pervades LotR - you could make a case for it as one of the great horror books of all time, as well as fantasy - and is of course the main fictional (as opposed to mythological) model for and direct progenitor of the whole "Dark Lord" trope that's played so large a part in superhero comics and fantasy fiction ever since that it's become a cliché.
Of course Tolkien was creating a fictional mythology of his own and Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth were themselves directly derived from Milton's Satan, and thus indirectly from the even more primaeval figures that feature in pretty much every mythology we know about (there's a great book about this called The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth, by Neil Forsyth, highly recommended for anyone interested in the subject).
But as a fictional creation - and therefore as a character in the broadest sense - I think Sauron was quite an inspired and original idea: there's nothing like him in Wagner's Ring, that I recall, or in William Morris's fantasy novels (or, I think, in Lord Dunsany's stories, though I'm less sure in this case, having read only one collection so far).
In terms of what we usually think of when we use the word - a personality we like or at least find fascinating in some way - I'd probably go with Gandalf, but in the wider sense of the figure that made the strongest impression on me and that I thnk is most important, yeah, the more I think about it I'd have to say Sauron.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Aug 23, 2019 8:15:23 GMT -5
The Hobbit movies were dire...and they got worse as they went along. They were the perfect illustration that Peter Jackson needs someone to reign him in. His ability to turn what was perfectly set up to be a great 2 1/2 hour movie into a grinding eight hours of mind-numbing pain is ridiculous. I wouldn't quite go that far. the real issue was that they were sticking to the trilogy format, when the Hobbit is a self-contained story, that moves along pretty well. LOTR meanders quite a bit, but at least builds to a conclusion (mostly). The Hobbit really is "there and back again." It only needed one movie; one and a half, tops. The Rankin-Bass version was only 78 minutes and doesn't really lose that much of the story. I don't even think Jackson wanted to do a trilogy; but, the studio did and if he wanted to make his Hobbitt, he had to agree to their structure (all supposition, obviously). I really wish we could have seen Guillermo del Toro's version, as it would have been different, yet exciting. I have no interest in a tv series, unless it has a lot of minstrel narrators. The other problem with those Hobbit movies, other than them stretching out out to a trilogy is that I felt like the tone didn't match the tone of the books. It was too dark. It matched the tone of the LOTR movies in being more serious, and I felt like that was a mistake. The Hobbit was more for kids than LOTR.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 27, 2019 21:04:01 GMT -5
I wonder why they can't show the first age?
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 28, 2019 9:58:53 GMT -5
I wonder why they can't show the first age? My impression was that they could do so but chose the rise of Sauron for their first storyline.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 2, 2019 8:37:57 GMT -5
I need that firepit in my life stat!
On another note I recently picked up a copy of the Children of Hurin for a buck at a library book sale...and I just can't get into it. I picked it up and devoured it when it first came out but now it just feels like a chore. I had been thinking about re-reading the Similarillion again, but I'm thinking that if I'm having trouble wading through Hurin that I'd find revisiting the larger version an even more herculean task which was far from the case in the days of my youth.
Has anyone else here had a similar issue in revisiting these works?
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 2, 2019 21:45:16 GMT -5
I've never really tried to re-visit them since my late teens but I intend to do so one of these days. I've been concentrating on earlier fantasy stuff the last several years now, so when I get back up to Tolkien's era I'll be looking at it with a bit more background and context, which I think should be interesting.
I'm still hopelessly confused about what, if anything, to read out of all those posthumous collections, though. I loved the Silmarillion when it first came out in the late 70s, but haven't ventured beyond that.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 3, 2019 7:14:44 GMT -5
I've always found The Silmarillion to be pretty impenetrable. I've tried unsecessfully to read it four times so far. I fully intend to get through it one of these days, but yeah...it hasn't happened so far.
I've read and re-read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings many times, and always enjoyed them whether I was 14 or 45. But with the exception of The Silmarillion, I've never tried any of the other posthumously released collections.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 3, 2019 8:57:44 GMT -5
I absolutely devoured those lost tales and unfinished works books as a teenager and I actually remember a good bit of them to this day, but I just can't get myself invested now. Maybe it comes down to that completionist feeling I had as a kid, it was there so it just had to be Important so I had to read it where as now I'm only interested in what gives me enjoyment and if it doesn't then I don't feel forced to complete it.
|
|