Where will TT end? and other editing issues

[jerseydevil]

Hey - Pippin was my favorite character in the book. He was just innocent and thought the world was just like the shire. It just reminds me of taking friends from outside the area to NY and seeing them stare in awe at the buidings. Of course MINUS one now!!!!!

But if Pippin were to die in the movie - it couldn't happen soon enough. I'd probably clap. Couldn't they have gotten some one younger to play Pippin and Merry - I still don't see how they have afternoon shadows when hobbits don't have facial hair. Instead of being young and innocent - I think of them as adults that act like 2 year olds and it really gets on my nerves.

I really don't think the Scouring of the Shire is going to be in there. After seeing FOTR - I know it won't be the way it is in the book (basically sympolism about the destruction of the environment by industry). I think LOTR is just going to end with the Ring being destroyed in Mt Doom, Aragorn being crowned and then the hobbits going back to the Shire and then the closing scene of the Grey Havens. It's going to be quick and sweet and probably take 15 - 20 minutes of the movie. Jackson pretty much took out the subplots from FOTR and the ones he added were standard cliched Hollywood ones, ie, Arargorn winning the battle for Arwen's hand.

[Gerbil]

(basically sympolism about the destruction of the environment by industry).

Errr...... methinks you are reading something into LotR that isn't there. Dunno how many times Tolkien said so, but LotR is not a reference to anything - I'm sure if I'd suggested LotR basically symbolises Christianity you'd have picked me up on one

As for Pippin and Merry, yes in the film they are indeed a bunch of dicks

[jerseydevil]

I know that he claims not to have any symbolism - a lot of authors do say that. But if you read the Scouring of the Shire about the pollution being belched out by the new mill, the sludge being dumped into the river and the trees being cut down and then think about what was going on in England or the US during that time frame - I think there is more than a coincidence.

All authors base things on life and take things from real life around them - either conciously or subconsiously. There were no "fantasy" bad guys doing anything in the Scouring of the Shire like orcs - it was pretty much about the destruction of the environment and of the implementation of a dictatorship.

A lot of times authors say their books don't contain any hidden meanings because they don't want to turn people away from reading them. But - if a person reads it - they still may think about what he/she is trying to get across.

Oh and I've always thought that the beginning of the Silmarillion was very much like the angels and the beginning of the world that Catholics believe. And that the Tol-Eressea was like Atlantis.

[Gerbil]

Well of course the scouring of the shire is about the shire's natural beauty being destroyed by man. That's what Tolkien wrote.

But what you've done is taken it out of context and applied it to your own interpretation.

I mean, we could look at Orthanc in the same light, and like the shire it is ultimately turned back into a funky place. You can probably assume that Mordor ends up being a nicer place after a few hundred years too.

What he writes is self-evident. What it means in the larger scale of things is nothing.

EG if I write a book where hell is underground, then that's because I choose it so, probably because of Christianity being part of my subconscious although I'm not a Christian. However, then reading into my story that I'm writing about Christianity would be incorrect.

[jerseydevil]

All I'm saying - whether Tolkien meant it or not - was that the Scouring of the Shire was the destruction of the environment, not the pillaging and enslaving of Hobbiton by rampaging orcs that Jackson had at the Mirror of Galadriel scene. Of course Galadriel in the movie says that that is what may come to pass if they should fail.

I just think the Scouring of the Shire is out. And if Jackson planned on changing it into another "club over the head" action scene - then I don't really want it in there anyway.

And just because Tolkien may have said that the books don't contain any symbolism - doesn't mean he was telling the truth. No one knows what an authur was thinking when they wrote a book. In all the English classes where I had to analyse the meaning of books - I never understood how people got half the stuff the teachers claimed things stood for. I was always asking - "How do you know? Did the author say this meant this?"

[niggle]

Symbolism generally means that something in a book "stands for" or represents something else. String a lot of symbols together and you get an allegory (a great example of that is "Animal Farm" by George Orwell where virtually every animal stands for a character out of early soviet history and every event for an event in the development of the soviet communist state). Tolkien emphatically said that he disliked allegory and symbolism. He also said that many people confused allegory with applicability. The Scouring of the Shire is not meant to represent the state of England at the time the Lord of the Rings was being written (late 30's to late 40's) or at the time it was published (1954). It just happens that certain aspects of what was happening in England during Tolkiens lifetime were similar to what happened in the Shire under the influence of Saruman. Tolkien tried very hard to make his 'sub-created' world autonomous and consistent with itself. If the world of middle earth depended for its effect on our recognising say Mordor as Soviet Russia or Orthanc as Nazi Germany (and both of those identifications were suggested to Tolkien and denied by him) then Tolkien's creation would not be so unique and extraordinary.

[jerseydevil]

I know - and another great allegorical book is Watership Down. Rabbits representing England, US and Soviet Union.

Since Tolkien is dead - we only have what he had said before. But I disagree that his writing was created in a vacuum. I think he did take things and experiences around him, whether he meant to or not. Possibly even taking things that he felt strongly about that were happening around him and fit them into the book. There can be an association without the reader having to know it in order to get the message.

I also don't think that enjoying any book requires you to "read between the lines". A lot of people enjoy the Wizard of Oz and that is allegorical. But I don't think that LOTR is allegorical - but I do think that Tolkien did have things in there that he personally was experiencing and felt strongly about .

[LuthienTinuviel]

i don't like books that i have to read between the lines for..

i read for enjoyment

these books are the only things ive read in the past year

[niggle]

I think we probably agree, Jerseydevil. Books are neither written nor read in isolation. I have just read one of Tolkien's letters where he says that the Glittering Caves were inspired by the Chedder Gorge which he visited on his honeymoon. I myself, despite the recent film, still associate LOTR with the countryside in England where I grew up. However I'm not entitled to claim that Tolkien was writing about the Hertfordshire/Essex border region where I grew up, and Tolkien would have denied that he was writing "about" the Cheddar Gorge. The feelings that Tolkien had about the destruction of the English landscape undoubtedly informed the descriptions of the spoliation of the Shire - that's why I find it a powerful piece of writing.

[Starr Polish]

Well, as a writer (well, I call myself that), I most definately am 'inspired' by what I've seen and heard. There is no possible way you can't be. I'm not saying it's impossible to pull something out of the air and describe it, or write about a character that is unlike anyone you know, but a majority of writing is inspired by what the author has experienced.

I also think that a good writer has to have SOME sort of acting abilitity or psychological knowledge to be able to get into a character's head, especially one unlike yourself. But, bah, I think everything involves acting.

[Wayfarer]

Speaking of books, jersydevil... are you an F. Paul Wilson Fan? I don't know if he writes the kind of stuff you would like, but upon recently finishing 'all the rage', I noticed that the last few chapters bore a number of references to your namesake.

[jerseydevil]

I haven't heard a F Paul Wilson before, but I like to read almost anything. Does "All the Rage" take place in New Jersey - since it has a couple chapters with the Jersey Devil mentioned?

I'll have to check it out.

[Wayfarer]

It takes place mostly in new york, but it ends up in New Jersy.

It's sort of a monster/suspense story, and said monster ends up loose in the forest near the town which reputedly spawned the jersy devil.

Hence references.

F. Paul Wilson is a pretty good writer... I'm not sure how much I like the supernatural aspect to his novels, but they're interesting.

[markedel]

LOTR is enjoyable because you can read between the lines and analyze it to death 30 times over-but don't need to.