We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 73
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,153
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post
    crux...milieu...frenetic...mel ange...veritable...physics
    Them's some mighty fancy words ya got there partner! Musta has some o' that high pollutin' book larnin' huh?
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I actually approve of the principle of cameos for LOTR characters. Within the retrospective continuity Legolas belongs in Mirkwood, after all, and it doesn't hurt the plot to include him. PJ could have gone further and had Estel and Gilraen living in Rivendell. (Arwen was off living with Auntie Gladdy in Lorien, however). Nothing wrong with including Radagast either, in principle. (I imagined him more as a pointy-hatted Dr Dolittle - I knew we were in for some nonsense as soon as I saw it was Sylvester McCoy playing him),
    I liked the way Frodo was there at the beginning. Davies was offered a cameo too, however he didnt want to due to being allergic to the mask. I've also heard some rumors about Mortensen being offered a mini role, but he turned it down. I hope there will be a scene where the 3 wizards are together. that would be cool, however I look forward to seeing Radagast in the 2nd movie. I was afraid he would only be in the first one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    We're not talking about a lack of 100% perfection being a problem or any such unfair expectation, but instead an odd lack of attention to realistic detail - for example, the way Dwarves or Goblins can be batted up in the air like it's a cartoon, and in the case of the Dwarves they're apparently none the worse for wear when thumped by Trolls - whereas in the fight with the Cave Troll in the movie of FOTR, there was obvious peril from the thing, that anybody it landed a solid hit on would be left very much the worse for wear. So that's one decided oddity, and then there's the extreme lack of believable physics in falls even by action movie standards.
    I noticed that too, but if he wanted to create a more child friendly movie, he certainly did. He could have made the movie dark as the Fellowship of the Ring, but he went for something more child friendly. Would be like telling a fairy tale, I guess that is what Bilbo does too if I remember it correctly. I think he was going for something more humorous which could be both good and bad. Depends on what you want to see in a movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    As for Azog - the book has a ready-made villain in the form of Bolg, Azog's son. They could have him had him wounded in the Battle of Azanulbizar but surviving, and having a burning desire for revenge against the Dwarves for having killed his father. As for what direction it's being taken in, come on: Azog as shown could not be a more two-dimensional villain and does nothing to define Thorin as a character, He leaves me cold, again odd given how memorable Lurtz was (not bad for a wholly invented character with limited screen time, but that wonderful sneer he favoured the wounded Boromir with spoke volumes). I can't see anything interesting in the other characters either, because they've been dumbed down. (Like having Bilbo turn action hero to rescue Thorin, screwing up the character development something awful).
    I have no clue why he used Azog instead of Bolg. However I enjoy watching Manu Benett act a little too much to complain after watching the Spartacus series for the 2nd time. Lurtz was a badass, he didnt whine like a little girl when Aragorn chopped his hand off nor when the sword was through his stomach. Boromir would still kick his &&& though if they met in melee. As far as I know today's standard is that the main character must be the main focus, like in any movie you will see the main character take a drastic turn towards the end and become something else. However we all know PJ has a certain love towards hobbits who turns into heroes. (Frodo/Sam). The little dog proving that he can take on the biggest dog. I guess that is something he really enjoys in a movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And he's changed it into some weaksauce generic fantasy. A magically sealed tomb that can't ever be opened, but he gets out anyway? Boy, never heard that one before, It is, of course, that good old trope Sealed Evil in a Can. Plus there's the usual abuse of the term 'Necromancer', so now we have Sauron apparently bringing the WiKi back from the dead - again, generic fantasy. (As Tolkien had it, the WiKi was neither living nor dead, as a way around the otherwise inevitable fate of Men - as soon as he became properly dead, he was toast and wouldn't be coming back). And I don't know why you're wondering why it's the WiKi - he's the obvious candidate because he's the only one of the Ring-wraiths who's a clearly recognisable individual to movie-goers, the others being pretty much interchangeable (much as in the books, to be fair).
    Well he certainly could add Khamûl, nobody would complain. Besides, it is known by any LOTR fan that Khamûl is one of the Nazguls at Dol Guldur. However it makes sense to have the Witch King there due to the timeline. If they added Khamûl it would certainly draw more focus to the other nazguls. I cant do anything but admire BFME-RotWKs adaption of Morgomir, the Witch King's right hand. Its too bad Tolkien never got to finish the whole thing. Dont get me wrong, The Witch King is my favorite villian of all time, but I prefer him with the cloak and the helmet
    Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover - Men at Work.
    You're welcome. Now it will fester in your head :p

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    You are incorrect,

    First You took that quote out of context, the main quote of tolkien is this one:

    In a 1951 letter to Milton Waldman, Tolkien writes about his intentions to create a "body of more or less connected legend"

    "The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama".—The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #131
    Quoting selectively, much? He said that 'once upon a time' he'd had the ambition to do such a thing - 'my crest is long since fallen', he continues, and ends up dismissing it as 'absurd'. The operative phrase is 'more or less connected', which does not require everything to be wholly consistent or connected to the same degree. That's why The Hobbit is quite some way distant from the 'serious' tales (Quenta Silmarillion et al.), merely borrowing a few things from them and lacking any solid connection.

    Futher more evidence that LOTR and Hobbit are linked is:

    Both Hobbit and LOTR are part of the Legendarium
    'Linked' is not the same thing as being in the exact same context. The legendarium is basically everything he wrote that's even remotely connected to Middle-earth, even if it's contradictory.

    LOTR is sequel to the popular hobbit.
    Tolkien expanded on the events of the hobbit to create LOTR, the magical ring becomes the one ring, the sword of bilbo was forged in gondolin and so on.
    LOTR is not a direct sequel to The Hobbit, for the reasons I explained - the would-be direct sequel never happened, Tolkien dramatically changed tack to give us the LOTR we know.

    Also tolkien did revisions to the Hobbit to fit LOTR lore.

    Tolkien substantially revised The Hobbit's text describing Bilbo's dealings with Gollum in order to blend the story better into what The Lord of the Rings had become. This revision became the second edition, published in 1951 in both UK and American editions. Slight corrections to the text have appeared in the third (1966) and fourth editions (1978).
    He made the absolute minimum of changes (yes, primarily to fix the obvious howler about how Bilbo came by the ring) but would have liked to do much more, even to the point of rewriting the whole thing. But of course you really can't do that to something that's already been published and is well-loved, even if he'd had the time. So the two never became the consistent whole you imagine them to be. This is well-known, not something I've just made up myself.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by bambubambubambu View Post
    Them's some mighty fancy words ya got there partner! Musta has some o' that high pollutin' book larnin' huh?
    I even uses punkshiation.


    Okay, Al, I seriously wonder if you even read other people's posts. I don't believe anyone has argued that these two stories take place in different fictional worlds. The issue is context. One story is a war for the fate of the world and other is a whimsical Hobbit adventure. The idea that they should be treated differently is not that hard to understand.

    You seem to think that you are in some kind of pissing-contest with Radhruin. Lemme clue you in on this one: You lose.
    Last edited by JGP; Jun 12 2013 at 06:47 PM.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Quoting selectively, much? He said that 'once upon a time' he'd had the ambition to do such a thing - 'my crest is long since fallen', he continues, and ends up dismissing it as 'absurd'. The operative phrase is 'more or less connected', which does not require everything to be wholly consistent or connected to the same degree. That's why The Hobbit is quite some way distant from the 'serious' tales (Quenta Silmarillion et al.), merely borrowing a few things from them and lacking any solid connection.
    You confused basic things radhruin realize that please, the things you confuse is serious tone writting with connected writting.

    What do I mean?

    The hobbit is not serious tone book, its a children's book but is connected to a serious tone trilogy (LOTR)

    Do you understand this statement?

    'Linked' is not the same thing as being in the exact same context. The legendarium is basically everything he wrote that's even remotely connected to Middle-earth, even if it's contradictory.
    They are in the same context (Middle earth), that should tell you enough, even further we read the hobbit and immedietly know there is a link with LOTR because LOTR expanded on the story.

    The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings form part of Tolkien's legendarium, a fictional mythology about the remote past of Earth, called Arda, and Middle-earth in particular. Published by his son, Christopher Tolkien, posthumously, The Silmarillion and The History of Middle-earth series revealed Tolkien's lifelong work on that same legendarium, a process which he called "sub-creation". Tolkien's other published fiction includes adaptations of stories originally told to his children but not directly related to the legendarium.


    LOTR is not a direct sequel to The Hobbit, for the reasons I explained - the would-be direct sequel never happened, Tolkien dramatically changed tack to give us the LOTR we know.
    You are wrong, here is a history lesson:

    Tolkien never expected his fictional stories to become popular, but he was persuaded by a former student to publish a book he had written for his own children called The Hobbit in 1937. However, the book attracted adult readers as well, and it became popular enough for the publisher, George Allen & Unwin, to ask Tolkien to work on a sequel. Even though he felt uninspired on the topic, this request prompted Tolkien to begin what would become his most famous work: the epic three-volume novel The Lord of the Rings (published 1954–55)

    He made the absolute minimum of changes (yes, primarily to fix the obvious howler about how Bilbo came by the ring) but would have liked to do much more, even to the point of rewriting the whole thing. But of course you really can't do that to something that's already been published and is well-loved, even if he'd had the time. So the two never became the consistent whole you imagine them to be. This is well-known, not something I've just made up myself.
    Ok I get your point but you are confusing consistency with the tone of writting, Hobbit is more "childish" than LOTR I do know that, but its consistent to the point you can relate the two in the same universe.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    You confused basic things radhruin realize that please, the things you confuse is serious tone writting with connected writting.

    What do I mean?

    The hobbit is not serious tone book, its a children's book but is connected to a serious tone trilogy (LOTR)

    Do you understand this statement?
    I'm not in the least bit confused. The connection between the two is simply not as straightforward and direct as you think it is. I've already explained why, although it seems that explanation has gone sailing over your head. You're mistaking broad similarity for an exact correspondence.

    They are in the same context (Middle earth), that should tell you enough, even further we read the hobbit and immedietly know there is a link with LOTR because LOTR expanded on the story.
    No, you read the two and you imagine that the simple, obvious link that exists is all there is, not recognising that the whole context has changed in the process. The entire world has shifted under the feet of that story, from fairy-tale to epic, from merely borrowing some names from his other tales to actually being part of the same continuity.

    The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings form part of Tolkien's legendarium, a fictional mythology about the remote past of Earth, called Arda, and Middle-earth in particular. Published by his son, Christopher Tolkien, posthumously, The Silmarillion and The History of Middle-earth series revealed Tolkien's lifelong work on that same legendarium, a process which he called "sub-creation". Tolkien's other published fiction includes adaptations of stories originally told to his children but not directly related to the legendarium.
    And there you're mistaken, because as written The Hobbit wasn't about Arda or Middle-earth at all. It was its own little fairy-tale realm, subsequently reconsidered and given a significance it was never originally meant to have. You're talking as if Tolkien had some grand plan all along but that's nonsense. He had a plan as far as his tales of the Elder Days went - to provide a background, a context to go with his invented languages - but hobbits were just something random that popped into his head one day - invented in an idle hour, as he said - and they didn't fit into his established scheme of things at all. He says as much.

    You are wrong, here is a history lesson:

    Tolkien never expected his fictional stories to become popular, but he was persuaded by a former student to publish a book he had written for his own children called The Hobbit in 1937. However, the book attracted adult readers as well, and it became popular enough for the publisher, George Allen & Unwin, to ask Tolkien to work on a sequel. Even though he felt uninspired on the topic, this request prompted Tolkien to begin what would become his most famous work: the epic three-volume novel The Lord of the Rings (published 1954–55)
    Oh, spare me. You don't know the half of it. Like I said, wake me up when you've studied HoME and preferably a decent biography of Tolkien as well and have some idea what you're talking about. The process by which we got LOTR was long drawn out, faltering and painful and the end result was not a direct sequel, but a major reconsideration of the whole thing in a different context, going from throwaway, one-off fairy-tale world to being part of the same continuity as his 'serious' tales.

    Ok I get your point but you are confusing consistency with the tone of writting, Hobbit is more "childish" than LOTR I do know that, but its consistent to the point you can relate the two in the same universe.
    No, it's consistent to the point you can imagine the two are in the same universe provided you don't look closely. You're just refusing to look. What's the matter, can't handle even a little ambiguity? Got to pretend everything lines up just so?

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    I'm not in the least bit confused. The connection between the two is simply not as straightforward and direct as you think it is. I've already explained why, although it seems that explanation has gone sailing over your head. You're mistaking broad similarity for an exact correspondence.
    The connection is straight forward literally and storywise, the events of the hobbit later became LOTR history what don't you get?

    No, you read the two and you imagine that the simple, obvious link that exists is all there is, not recognising that the whole context has changed in the process. The entire world has shifted under the feet of that story, from fairy-tale to epic, from merely borrowing some names from his other tales to actually being part of the same continuity.
    You don't understand Tolkien thats your mistake, if he didn't considered the hobbit a background for LOTR he wouldn't have shared it in the legendarium as well as borrowing everything from the hobbit from trolls to epic ending.

    And there you're mistaken, because as written The Hobbit wasn't about Arda or Middle-earth at all. It was its own little fairy-tale realm, subsequently reconsidered and given a significance it was never originally meant to have. You're talking as if Tolkien had some grand plan all along but that's nonsense. He had a plan as far as his tales of the Elder Days went - to provide a background, a context to go with his invented languages - but hobbits were just something random that popped into his head one day - invented in an idle hour, as he said - and they didn't fit into his established scheme of things at all. He says as much.
    In a hole lived a hobbit, that is how the hobbit book starts and introduces hobbits and goes into more detail about them than LOTR even been a kid's tale. You don't want to consider the hobbit is alright its your choice but don't try to make tolkien agree with you because Tolkien considered his whole world consistent and tried his best to make his "sub creation" as a whole.

    Oh, spare me. You don't know the half of it. Like I said, wake me up when you've studied HoME and preferably a decent biography of Tolkien as well and have some idea what you're talking about. The process by which we got LOTR was long drawn out, faltering and painful and the end result was not a direct sequel, but a major reconsideration of the whole thing in a different context, going from throwaway, one-off fairy-tale world to being part of the same continuity as his 'serious' tales.
    Sorry not even Home agree with you, you a desperatly trying to make LOTR a stand alone universe of its own, sorry it doesn't work like that, Arda is the same place were hobbit occurs aswell as LOTR and Silmarillion.

    No, it's consistent to the point you can imagine the two are in the same universe provided you don't look closely. You're just refusing to look. What's the matter, can't handle even a little ambiguity? Got to pretend everything lines up just so?
    I looked but the only thing I found is that you "interpret" things that don't exists and when you run into the wall of contradiction you try to fix it to fit you, thats not how it works you need language comprehension skills to even read LOTR appendix, Hobbit, Silmarillion, Home, Unfinished tales, etc. You are a sad case.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    And Im not saying Tolkien had a "Grand Scheme" when he made the hobbit, but in the end the Hobbit does take part in a "Grand Scheme", does that makes sense to you?

    Im sure it made sense to Tolkien.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    The connection is straight forward literally and storywise, the events of the hobbit later became LOTR history what don't you get?
    It's not a straightforward thing to go from a fairytale world with no organised history or languages to a world which has to have both and has to treat Tolkien's other tales as ancient myth, legend and history. Tolkien had trouble with it, which is one reason why LOTR took him such a long time to write, You're looking at in retrospect, acting like it's all straightforward and there are no rough edges even though Tolkien couldn't give The Hobbit the complete rewrite he would ideally have wanted to. You are, in short, being obtuse - you're apparently unable or unwilling to look closely enough. This is wilful ignorance.

    You don't understand Tolkien thats your mistake, if he didn't considered the hobbit a background for LOTR he wouldn't have shared it in the legendarium as well as borrowing everything from the hobbit from trolls to epic ending.
    I've had this sort of discussion before with other people who get the concept just fine. I do understand Tolkien, you just think it's all simpler than it really is.

    In a hole lived a hobbit, that is how the hobbit book starts and introduces hobbits and goes into more detail about them than LOTR even been a kid's tale. You don't want to consider the hobbit is alright its your choice but don't try to make tolkien agree with you because Tolkien considered his whole world consistent and tried his best to make his "sub creation" as a whole.
    No, Tolkien did not consider his whole world to be consistent and said as much. I even posted a quote in which he comments on just how inconsistent The Hobbit was. You just have some messed-up need of your own to pretend otherwise.

    Sorry not even Home agree with you, you a desperatly trying to make LOTR a stand alone universe of its own, sorry it doesn't work like that, Arda is the same place were hobbit occurs aswell as LOTR and Silmarillion.
    Umm, no. It was The Hobbit that was originally set in its own little fairy-tale world, whereas LOTR was written to fit in with the Sil, the different context I've been referring to. Do try to keep up.

    I looked but the only thing I found is that you "interpret" things that don't exists and when you run into the wall of contradiction you try to fix it to fit you, thats not how it works you need language comprehension skills to even read LOTR appendix, Hobbit, Silmarillion, Home, Unfinished tales, etc. You are a sad case.
    Look, mate, if you want to be away with the fairies going LA LA LA and imagining that it's all magically consistent because that makes you happy, be my guest. Just don't expect me or anyone else to go along with that.

  10. #35
    ...and that's why this forum can't have nice things.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    791
    What exactly is being argued here? Are you saying the hobbit and LoTR take place in different worlds or just that the tone changed? It's pretty obvious that the two stories occur the same world along the same timeline. Tolkien just didn't realize he would do this until working on LoTR. So, he connected some dots, left some out and told his tale. The hobbit is fairy tale-ish and LoTR is epic fantasy. Different types of stories told in the same world with some of the same characters. I personally think he did a great job connecting the two despite the fact that it wasn't his original intentions to do so

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    What exactly is being argued here? Are you saying the hobbit and LoTR take place in different worlds or just that the tone changed? It's pretty obvious that the two stories occur the same world along the same timeline. Tolkien just didn't realize he would do this until working on LoTR. So, he connected some dots, left some out and told his tale. The hobbit is fairy tale-ish and LoTR is epic fantasy. Different types of stories told in the same world with some of the same characters. I personally think he did a great job connecting the two despite the fact that it wasn't his original intentions to do so
    It's not just the tone, it's the continuity that's changed behind the scenes (it's not really the same world, just close enough to pass muster provided you don't look too closely). In modern terms you might think of LOTR as a gritty reboot, grim and dark to match the doom-laden tone of the Quenta Silmarillion. Yes, he did a good job of it but equally there's no harm in pointing out that it was a patch job, and that he would have preferred to rewrite The Hobbit in its entirety.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It's not just the tone, it's the continuity that's changed behind the scenes (it's not really the same world, just close enough to pass muster provided you don't look too closely). In modern terms you might think of LOTR as a gritty reboot, grim and dark to match the doom-laden tone of the Quenta Silmarillion. Yes, he did a good job of it but equally there's no harm in pointing out that it was a patch job, and that he would have preferred to rewrite The Hobbit in its entirety.
    Ah ok, I see what you're saying. I think it's just down to perspective and how you choose to take in the story. Ideally, the hobbit could have been written with LoTR in mind, but since it wasn't, I am fine with his efforts to connect them later. I still see it as one world with two tales told by Bilbo.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by PoeticNightmare View Post
    Ah ok, I see what you're saying. I think it's just down to perspective and how you choose to take in the story. Ideally, the hobbit could have been written with LoTR in mind, but since it wasn't, I am fine with his efforts to connect them later. I still see it as one world with two tales told by Bilbo.
    Well, no - that's you choosing to pretend that and blithely ignoring the details that don't fit, rather than deal with the messy reality.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Well, no - that's you choosing to pretend that and blithely ignoring the details that don't fit, rather than deal with the messy reality.
    No, that's me not worrying about picking out tiny little details that don't matter in the grand scheme. Discrepancies (the little that there are) or not, it is a FACT that the two stories are in the same universe. Why? Because Tolkien said so. Whether he intended this at first or not doesn't matter. His final intention was two tales in the same world. If he made Bilbo younger in the LoTR, made the ring a necklace, made Sauron a fluffy little kitten, switched Gandalf with Saruman, and made Hobbits the size of trolls......it would still be the same universe because the author and creator says so. It's that simple. You are really exaggerating inconsistencies now.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Nope. Tolkien just papered over the biggest crack (Gollum's behaviour and how Bilbo came by the Ring) but there's plenty else that doesn't read across from the fairytale world of The Hobbit. Giants, for example - they don't appear in LOTR, they don't even get a mention - no giants existing or even hinted at in the Sil, either and unlike hobbits, it'd be kind of hard for giants to pass unnoticed. It's like they've just... disappeared. Funny, that. And there's more where that came from.

    You have heard the term retcon, right? As in retrospective change of continuity? That can be anything from small, subtle changes up to a wholesale re-imagining of what's going on, aka a reboot. And that's what Tolkien did when he ditched the original fairytale world of The Hobbit and started acting like it had been Middle-earth all along - even though that involved retconning hobbits and their quirkily 'English', anachronistic lifestyle into the otherwise consistently 'ancient' world of his serious tales, where it sticks out like a sore thumb stylistically (something he acknowledged).
    Nope sorry, on first account of Giants we can safety assume they also exist in LOTR even if there is no mention of them, same for Silmarillion, there are mysteries like Tom Bombadil and giants fit same place.

    Second account retcons only work when they contradict each other, that doesn't happen with Tolkien works they are more consistent is most things than incosistent, thus is the same world.

    You clearly see Tolkien expanding on the hobbit to make LOTR, its a sequel consistent in the most part, the things that depart from LOTR are also part of the fantastic world, like Beorning skin changers for example or Gandalf using magical fire and other magic tricks are consistent with the mythology from LOTR as he used in both books same elements of norse myth, anglosaxon tales, nibelungs, etc its all over the hobbit and LOTR.

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Nope sorry, on first account of Giants we can safety assume they also exist in LOTR even if there is no mention of them, same for Silmarillion, there are mysteries like Tom Bombadil and giants fit same place.
    No. Just no. This is not an argument, this is an assertion. Tolkien's fictional world is Tolkien's fiction world. No more and no less. There are no giants in Tolkien mythology because Tolkien did not put any there.

    Rad is 100% correct on this issue. The Hobbit is chock full of things that are never again mentioned in Tolkien's serious mythology because he did not want them there! It's time for YOU to deal with that fact or begin your defense of Beorn's pony waitstaff in the Sil. Or did the High Kings of the Noldor use the sheep waiters instead? Make your case.

    I enjoy seeing Rad's wall o' text when he gets trolled as much as the next guy, but this is just getting silly. Can we just get back to some good ole Peter Jackson bashing please?

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post
    No. Just no. This is not an argument, this is an assertion. Tolkien's fictional world is Tolkien's fiction world. No more and no less. There are no giants in Tolkien mythology because Tolkien did not put any there.

    Rad is 100% correct on this issue. The Hobbit is chock full of things that are never again mentioned in Tolkien's serious mythology because he did not want them there! It's time for YOU to deal with that fact or begin your defense of Beorn's pony waitstaff in the Sil. Or did the High Kings of the Noldor use the sheep waiters instead? Make your case.

    I enjoy seeing Rad's wall o' text when he gets trolled as much as the next guy, but this is just getting silly. Can we just get back to some good ole Peter Jackson bashing please?
    Its FACT, get it, you can't disagree without proof.

    LOTR is the hobbit sequel.

    Its the same fictional world, Tolkien said it not me. So yes all of the hobbit is LOTR history events, even Giants and Skin-changers, everything.

    So yes we can say for FACT that giants exist or existed in Middle earth, we can speculate they disappeared or went hiding or became exitict but Giants are part of the whole mythology both hobbit and LOTR.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Nope sorry, on first account of Giants we can safety assume they also exist in LOTR even if there is no mention of them, same for Silmarillion, there are mysteries like Tom Bombadil and giants fit same place.
    In point of fact no, you can't legitimately assume that, that's assuming a consistency and overall continuity that does not exist. As I said before, if you want to pretend that to yourself because it makes you happy then you're more than welcome but I'm afraid that really, you're kidding yourself. Tom Bombadil is an intentional mystery, that's something that Tolkien commented on himself - that doesn't give you an excuse to label everything else that doesn't fit your view as more of the same. There are things in The Hobbit that are purely fairy-tale creations, not part of the consistent mythology that Tolkien established for his other tales. The lack of giants in the Sil is readily demonstrated - they're just not there, they don't fit into that scheme of things at all. Hobbits don't either (as something invented in 'an idle hour', not part of his consistent mythology, as he says), but there Tolkien chose to pretend, not unreasonably, that they had simply passed unnoticed. This is, however, a case of the author fiddling things around in retrospect so as to include something he would otherwise never have done. It's a retcon.

    As JGP rightly pointed out, if Beorn's magic serving-sheep don't illustrate to you the essential fairy-tale nature of The Hobbit and its original lack of direct connection to the serious myth-making, nothing will. Baa! Baa!

    Second account retcons only work when they contradict each other, that doesn't happen with Tolkien works they are more consistent is most things than incosistent, thus is the same world.
    You can tell it isn't because, for example, the idea of a Man being able to change his own shape doesn't fit in with the Sil's take on such things at all. It's therefore unsurprising that in LOTR the Beornings get shunted to one side, mentioned in passing but left very much in the background.

    You clearly see Tolkien expanding on the hobbit to make LOTR, its a sequel consistent in the most part, the things that depart from LOTR are also part of the fantastic world, like Beorning skin changers for example or Gandalf using magical fire and other magic tricks are consistent with the mythology from LOTR as he used in both books same elements of norse myth, anglosaxon tales, nibelungs, etc its all over the hobbit and LOTR.
    Did you forget that quote of his I posted earlier? With him saying that the Dwarves in The Hobbit have names lifted from Voluspa, which clashed with the consistent nomenclature he'd established for his myth-making? And that hobbits were something invented 'in an idle hour'? Any fool can see that hobbits are essentially fairy-tale creatures - he had to retrofit them to his mythology as best he could. It's why their lifestyle is so unlike anybody else's in Middle-earth: in a fairy-tale, a place like the Shire can exist unremarked-upon because in such a tale, things simply 'are' and don't need explanations whereas in serious fiction, they do. Fortunately for LOTR, the sheer power of the story is enough to lead us to blithely ignore such internal contradictions, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist at all.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    In point of fact no, you can't legitimately assume that, that's assuming a consistency and overall continuity that does not exist. As I said before, if you want to pretend that to yourself because it makes you happy then you're more than welcome but I'm afraid that really, you're kidding yourself. Tom Bombadil is an intentional mystery, that's something that Tolkien commented on himself - that doesn't give you an excuse to label everything else that doesn't fit your view as more of the same. There are things in The Hobbit that are purely fairy-tale creations, not part of the consistent mythology that Tolkien established for his other tales. The lack of giants in the Sil is readily demonstrated - they're just not there, they don't fit into that scheme of things at all. Hobbits don't either (as something invented in 'an idle hour', not part of his consistent mythology, as he says), but there Tolkien chose to pretend, not unreasonably, that they had simply passed unnoticed. This is, however, a case of the author fiddling things around in retrospect so as to include something he would otherwise never have done. It's a retcon.
    He never said what you claim, Tolkien explicitly says hobbits are part of the whole mythology he made in both LOTR and Hobbit, let me put it this way for you:

    Why did tolkien put hobbits in the Lord of the rings?
    Answer: Because those fairy tale creatures do exist in same place just as Men, Elves and dwarves, even if they don't get a single mention in the Silmarillion, you are forced to assume they exist.



    As JGP rightly pointed out, if Beorn's magic serving-sheep don't illustrate to you the essential fairy-tale nature of The Hobbit and its original lack of direct connection to the serious myth-making, nothing will. Baa! Baa!
    Lack of connection, I could post all things the hobbit and LOTR are connected and you would still say they are incosistent with each other, let me say it again LOTR is sequel to the hobbit, they are basically the continuation of the story even if its another tone of writting, in fact it makes it richer in an artistical way that they are both linked.
    You can tell it isn't because, for example, the idea of a Man being able to change his own shape doesn't fit in with the Sil's take on such things at all. It's therefore unsurprising that in LOTR the Beornings get shunted to one side, mentioned in passing but left very much in the background.
    Again wrong. Beorn and his sons could shape form thats FACT from Tolkien sub creation, even more Beornings helped aragorn pass the anduin river with gollum as prisoner, need any more proof?

    Did you forget that quote of his I posted earlier? With him saying that the Dwarves in The Hobbit have names lifted from Voluspa, which clashed with the consistent nomenclature he'd established for his myth-making? And that hobbits were something invented 'in an idle hour'? Any fool can see that hobbits are essentially fairy-tale creatures - he had to retrofit them to his mythology as best he could. It's why their lifestyle is so unlike anybody else's in Middle-earth: in a fairy-tale, a place like the Shire can exist unremarked-upon because in such a tale, things simply 'are' and don't need explanations whereas in serious fiction, they do. Fortunately for LOTR, the sheer power of the story is enough to lead us to blithely ignore such internal contradictions, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist at all.
    You just said it, in fairy tales some things don't have an explanation well I will break your bubble, LOTR is fantasy just as the hobbit, some things are not explained and left for the reader to interpret.

    Even more proof that they are both linked is the the maps made by Tolkien, the shire is there just like Lorien or Moria, everything is linked.

    To JGP and Wolfhelm, there is a pitty you are given irefutable facts and you insist that "tolkien didn't want it so", you are even more childish than I thought. Logic dictates the hobbit and LOTR are the same universe like it or not.
    Last edited by Al.; Jun 18 2013 at 02:57 PM.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfhelm View Post


    And this from a guy calling other people's knowledge of Tolkien into question!
    This is a warning try to discredit my reputation again and you will pay for it.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    He never said what you claim, Tolkien explicitly says hobbits are part of the whole mythology he made in both LOTR and Hobbit, let me put it this way for you:

    Why did tolkien put hobbits in the Lord of the rings?
    Because he was stuck with them, exactly as they were, despite how both they and their lifestyle didn't really fit in with anything else.

    Answer: Because those fairy tale creatures do exist in same place just as Men, Elves and dwarves, even if they don't get a single mention in the Silmarillion, you are forced to assume they exist.
    We are only forced to assume that after the fact because it's a retcon. That's the bit you're being quite spectacularly dense about.

    Lack of connection, I could post all things the hobbit and LOTR are connected and you would still say they are incosistent with each other, let me say it again LOTR is sequel to the hobbit, they are basically the continuation of the story even if its another tone of writting, in fact it makes it richer in an artistical way that they are both linked.
    That'd be because they are inconsistent in both style and content. LOTR isn't a direct sequel to The Hobbit - Tolkien got writer's block while trying to write a second tale to follow on directly from The Hobbit in the same style, and only got going again when he set the fairy-tale stuff (other than Tom Bombadil) aside and started over. One exists in a different continuity to the other because The Hobbit wasn't originally written to be part of his mythology, and it shows.

    Again wrong. Beorn and his sons could shape form thats FACT from Tolkien sub creation, even more Beornings helped aragorn pass the anduin river with gollum as prisoner, need any more proof?
    Way to miss the point. There's nothing like that in the Sil, anywhere - only those with the power of Maiar or Valar are seen to change shape there (so it's markedly inconsistent) and as I said, the Beornings are kept in the background in LOTR. We don't meet them. Skin-changing isn't mentioned even so much as once in LOTR.

    You just said it, in fairy tales some things don't have an explanation well I will break your bubble, LOTR is fantasy just as the hobbit, some things are not explained and left for the reader to interpret.
    The two are different kinds of fantasy: when Tolkien was writing seriously he was very much in the habit of being consistent and providing explanations for things, only tending to omit them in the case of the profoundly supernatural or enigmatic (like, say, Tom Bombadil). The mundane lifestyle of the hobbits is so different from that of everybody else that it defies explanation (and none is offered), which is a fairy-tale sensibility and markedly different from the otherwise overwhelmingly self-consistent secondary world of Middle-earth. LOTR isn't written as a fairy-tale, but as an epic (hence the 'lofty' tone that becomes more and more prevalent as the tale goes on) and so the retained fairy-tale elements stand out, and look odd in contrast. It's like two different books - the early Hobbit-like bit, the first few chapters, and then all the rest. This is an artifact, a consequence of the writing process - Tolkien had written those early chapters first (when he was trying to write a direct sequel to The Hobbit) and scarcely revised them later despite the shift in overall tone. He admits this drastic shift.

    Even more proof that they are both linked is the the maps made by Tolkien, the shire is there just like Lorien or Moria, everything is linked.
    Again, only after the fact, as part of the retcon that changed the whole context of The Hobbit. All you're doing is blathering on about how things ended up, not recognising how they stood before Tolkien completely reconsidered where he was going with it and fiddled it all around just enough to make it work.

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    This is a warning try to discredit my reputation again and you will pay for it.
    How much would a little discrediting cost me? I'm considering splurging.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,717
    My give at it, The Hobbit occurs 75 years before LotR. end of story.
    Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover - Men at Work.
    You're welcome. Now it will fester in your head :p

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    My give at it, The Hobbit occurs 75 years before LotR. end of story.
    ...because when Tolkien was writing a story for kids in the 1930s he already knew he'd be turning it into an epic in the 1950s and made sure everything lined up neatly? Wow, that sure was clever of him!

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload