How could the books have been improved?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Racey pics of Elf babes.

[azalea]

[Lizra]

YEAH!

[Lefty Scaevola]

And we must not forget pics of Hunks, either.

[Falagar]

If a book has managed to become one of the most popular books through the 20th century, I think there's no need for improvements.

[Black Breathalizer]

What is wrong about debating whether little things from the books could have been improved upon? This is not a loyalty test.

I found that I have liked some of the things that Peter Jackson did differently in his films and think they would have enhanced the books as well. Tolkien wrote his story as if it were an historical account, so as fans we can still enjoy the novels while believing that perhaps some events and details were slightly different that what Tolkien "reported." In fact, this approach to modifying and expanding upon the "great stories" during retellings is what mythology is all about.

[azalea]

I guess I was kind of looking for a response to my post -- is this intended to be a book thread, where people are to offer up possible improvements, and the movies were mentioned as a way of introduction, or is the focus to be changes made by the films? Because if it is the former, we need to move on from movie related comments (the movie being used to show examples of changes as an introduction) into changes offered that don't point back to the movies. Otherwise, this really belongs in the movies forum.

[Black Breathalizer]

Oops, azalea. I'm afraid your biases are showing.

How many times have purists used the books to defend their negative views of the movies in the movies forum? I never once heard you or the other moderators say, "hey if you're gonna keep mentioning the books here, we'll have to move this thread to the books thread."

This thread is legit even if I use movie examples to prove my point. But if you want to get it out of here so it doesn't sully the other threads here, I would prefer you simply close it and be done with it.

BB out.

[Sheeana]

BB, it's not her bias, it's forum policy. Take a look at the "keeping books and movies separate" thread sometime.

[Elf Girl]

BB, as the thread starter, are you going to reply? If you won't tell her where to put this, it will have to be closed.

The reason you may discuss the books in the movie forum but not the movies in the book forum is because this is a Tolkien message board. It has been decided that the movie forum will be used for threads such as comparison of books and movies, and discussions that involve both the books and the movies. So shall it be.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer


This thread is legit even if I use movie examples to prove my point. But if you want to get it out of here so it doesn't sully the other threads here, I would prefer you simply close it and be done with it.

As Sheeana stated, board policy is that discussion of the movies be confined to that forum. I have no problem with your using the movies as examples. However, the conversation should then turn toward other ways the books might have been different, aside from the movies. Otherwise, this becomes a thread discussing changes made in the movies, and in that case it would need to be moved. It really is neither here nor there to me, but in order for me to do my job effectively, I have to follow board policy like everyone else. I await your answer as to whether or not this is to be book-focused or movie-focused.

Quite frankly, I find this to be an interesting topic. As I read Letters, I can see what a perfectionist Tolkien seems to be while he is writing LotR. I imagine (and I think this is true) that the author himself saw areas where he might have done things differently after it was published, esp. after some years (as he did with The Hobbit).

NOTE: I happen to love the movies, as you may remember, but (and I hate to repeat myself) the book forum is exclusively for the books (aside from the stray comment here or there), but "book talk" must invade the movies forum because it is on the books that the movies are based (and I know you know that )

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...I found that I have liked some of the things that Peter Jackson did differently in his films and think they would have enhanced the books as well....

Keep your disgusting, revolting comments regarding your god, PJ, out of the book forum, you filthy blasphemer!!!

[GrayMouser]

Okay, fools rush in....

Book V, The Siege of Gondor. The gates have been cast down, the Lord of the Nazgul is riding in, Gandalf the White is about to become Gandalf the Flat :

And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.

And as if in answer there came from far away another note...

Is it Aragorn, rightful King of Gondor, Heir of Eldar and Edain, coming to save his people?

Umm, no actually...

Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North, wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last

Now, this is definitely the the turning point of the book (at least the War part, as opposed to Frodo's Quest) - it still sends a shiver down my spine whenever I read it.

But the Rohirrim? Who? A bunch of Johnny-come-latelys from the North who, my dear, aren't even Related to Anyone Who Is Anyone.

And where is our Hero? Not only does he show up late, basically as a back-up, but his story is told off-stage and in flashback.

I know we're told that he arrives just in the nick of time, with Eomer surrounded, but - the Lord of the Nazgul is already dead, the Darkness is breaking up, the Siege has been driven back- emotionally the tide has turned.

He doesn't even get to kill the Witch-King- this was the guy who, after all, destroyed the North Kingdom and turned Aragorn's people into refugees.

And it could have so easily been different....

[Cirdan]

The book should have been released as a popup book.

It would have been better if it was written in latin.

Instead of a ring it should have been an evil melon baller.

Sauron could have actually been Frodo's father.

The second volume should have been titled "At Least Two Towers, MAybe More".

Everyone in the fellowship dies and comes back to life at least once.

Sam steals the ring and rules all of Middle Earth, forcing its inhabitants to garden relentlessly.

Sauron doesn't die but keeps coming back over and over, causing an endless line of sequels.

Allegories... lots and lots of allegories.

The Balrog should have had wings.

The Balrog shouldn't have had wings.

The ents go on a rampage and kill all the other Middle Earth dwellers in search of some fine entwife lovin'.

[Anglorfin]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Boromir. Jackson's Boromir showed more humanity and character than Tolkien's did. This made the fall of Boromir more emotional because the audience related more to him. I didn't find myself caring for Boromir in the book the same way I did in the movie. If Tolkien would have written Boromir as he was portrayed in the film, Boromir's death would have been more moving.

While I tend to agree on that point, I know a ton of people (non-bookies mostly) who saw the movies and for whatever reason failed to grasp what Boromir's character was supposed to represent. We both know because of the books, so our idea of what to expect from Boromir's character is already founded and we are able to appreciate his portrayal in the movie. I owe most of this to the fact that some things are just generally portrayed better on screen and some things on paper. Boromir is a good example. His character is beautiful (one of my favorites in book and film) but having actually read the book greatly enhances what we see of him in the movie.

[IronParrot]

I'm going to answer this question completely seriously, but without any reference to the movies (in concordance with our forum rules in this thread).

First of all: The Lord of the Rings is my favourite novel ever, but I don't think it's absolutely perfect. I've had some concerns since the first reading, though I've gotten used to most of them over time.

Most of these concerns are nitpicks I don't remember. Like, for example, the roundtable discussion in chapter I.5 ("A Conspiracy Unmasked") where the four eventual hobbit members of the Fellowship talk and talk and talk, and Fatty Bolger just sits there and doesn't pipe up until the very end - almost as if Tolkien forgot about him. That always bugged me a bit.

I think the sequence from the Old Forest to the Barrow-Downs has some problems regarding pacing. I'd be sad to see any of it go (now that I'm so endeared with everything in the book) but I know for a fact that the book does lose impatient first-time readers there, and they don't have any idea what wonders are to come next, which is a real shame.

You see, almost all my issues with the book have to do with Books I and VI. The way Tolkien wrote the novel, you can see that in Book I, he's still writing it very much in the same manner he wrote The Hobbit. He's still adjusting, and LOTR eventually evolves so far beyond these initial chapters that these are almost left in the dust. It's not uncommon for a lot of writers to flounder around in the exposition before finding the direction he really wants to take things in. Unfortunately, a lot of the expository material is too endearing to cut, and it's left in - the result being a pacing problem. I'd say Tolkien suffered from this.

That said, I guess you could make a thematic argument that Book I (up to I.9, "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony") is necessarily relaxing because it lures the hobbits into a false sense of security about what is to come.

I don't think I have a problem with anything from I.9 to VI.3 ("Mount Doom") but:

I liked how LOTR was a circular, hobbits'-eye-view journey - that Frodo and Sam (and the reader) leave the comfort of the Shire and enter this world of legends, and by the end of the story, the legends fade away and we're back where we started. But that fading away was always a bit quick. I don't like how Gimli and Legolas make their exits so suddenly, and don't really have proper resolution until Appendix A. Also, I don't think that VI.8 ("The Scouring of the Shire") was anti-climactic because it was less grand or important as the destruction of the Ring - it's just that there's a heck of a lot of padding between VI.3 and VI.8. Count'em - four whole chapters of false denouement. That, to me, is perhaps too much. If you're a reader who missed the not-always-obvious hints that something is wrong in the Shire (the pipeweed at Isengard, etc.) then I could expect you to get a little lost here.

In fact, my biggest problems with The Lord of the Rings have nothing to do with the books themselves, but the following:

- The Prologue... good appendix information for people who haven't read The Hobbit, but first-time readers should really skip it before they get the wrong impression.

- The "Summary of the events so far" in front of Books III and V, in the three-volume editions. I hated, hated, hated the fact that I had Boromir's death and Merry and Pippin's capture spoiled for me before I reached III.1 ("The Departure of Boromir") and III.3 ("The Uruk-Hai"). I still do.

Character-wise, I always wished Fatty Bolger had a bigger role. Think about it: he's the unsung fifth hobbit of the Fellowship. Almost like the Fifth Beatle.

In any case, I think the question Black Breathalizer asks in this thread is a legitimate one. Tolkien isn't a God of Writing (the degree of verbiage in The Silmarillion is pretty much proof of this) and LOTR isn't perfect to the letter.

On the other hand, I don't think we should be approaching this question purely in comparison with the film. Come on, people, you can do better than that... come up with your own ideas.

[IronParrot]

For those of you who skimmed my last post - which I made in my capacity as a Member - here, in a sentence or few, is my judgment as an Administrator - which isn't too different from what azalea already said above:

If all you intend to do is compare the book with the films, do it in the existing 900+ post thread in the Films forum, or somewhere of that sort. However, this thread will remain open because aside from being a pure diametric (and silly) Film-versus-Book dungslinging, this is a very legitimate subject for discussion.

[Anglorfin]

Originally posted by IronParrot
For those of you who skimmed my last post - which I made in my capacity as a Member - here, in a sentence or few, is my judgment as an Administrator - which isn't too different from what azalea already said above:

If all you intend to do is compare the book with the films, do it in the existing 900+ post thread in the Films forum, or somewhere of that sort. However, this thread will remain open because aside from being a pure diametric (and silly) Film-versus-Book dungslinging, this is a very legitimate subject for discussion.

Oops I apologize if my latest post here has contributed to your warning. However looking back I don't think I said all that I wanted to regarding that subject anyway.

The only reason I bring up the film is because it is a good reference for the character of Boromir (being IMO the most accurate book-film character adaptation). While Boromir's character in the book is important, at some points Tolkien may be a little too subtle in emphasizing his better qualities. Sure, he saves a few Hobbits now and then throughout the journey but that is hardly proof of his intended overall good nature. In a story where Boromir's death was meant to happen, it would have suited Tolkien better to make it more of a tragedy than a "keep my honor and become a hero" type thing. Besides Boromir's direct confession to Aragorn as he lies dying, there is little evidence of his repentance otherwise. He was always a little too distant in the books until later, when all the reader was reminded of was the brooding evil inside of him.

Once again, I use film Boromir as an example because a few different aspects of his character just happened to show up better on film. And if anything, film Boromir serves as a good enhancement to the way people should look at him.


[edit]I'm still not sure I am saying what I want to say. I might change this post in the future to further clarify what I am thinking. It's hard for me to pinpoint right now though. I just hope it is at least a little understandable for now. [/edit]

[azalea]

You made your points excellently (?) as usual, IP!
Aside from the little changes he later made to his mythology (such as changing the origin of orcs from elves, as it is in LotR, to men later), I think there were probably whole sections that he might have liked to rewrite. I esp. like your point about the sentimental attachment to certain chunks of writing or specific sentences that are really unnecessary.

As I said, I've been reading Letters, and he has made several references to completely changing many things he had outlined in the beginning as the story progressed (which speaks to your comment, echoed by many elsewhere at Entmoot, that Book I was "Hobbit sequel", whereas the later books become a story in their own right). I happen to like all of it the way he did it, but as I said, I think in later years he probably saw things in the published story that he might have written differently, just as he did during the years he was writing the story before it was published.

Like all great writers, I think he saw a story as being "fluid" in a way, that revision after revision was crucial to making a story the best it could be. Unfortunately for us, this is why we didn't get the volume of work from him that we do from other lesser (but probably wealthier) writers -- they spew out book after book of mediocrity. This is precisely why The Silmarillion wasn't published during his lifetime -- he was constantly working to improve it, and undoubtedly had learned from his previous experiences. (So for the writer, publication of the work doesn't automatically equate to the end of the writing -- the writer's mind may continue to revise, which is what I think he was trying to do with The Silm -- both "correct" some things from LotR AND try very hard to perfect the story once and for all. But sadly a genius will always see room for improvement, and so it is only with his death that the revisions can stop and the product be consumed).

Because of this, I theorize that he himself could see areas where LotR might have been improved, but still was completely satisfied with the end result. Those two seem to contradict one another, but not in my world.

Okay, enough babbling from me!!

[Melko Belcha]

The only way I can see LotR's being improved is if it was longer.