Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ser Scot A Ellison

Tolkien 4.0 (A dark and hungry sea lion arises)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ran said:

 

The most obvious change of all is in Frodo, who is permanently marked by his experience and can no longer find peace in Middle-earth due to the spiritual and psychological trauma he suffered.

The other Hobbits are changed as well by their experiences, to a lesser degree, uniformly becoming more mature and serious after having gained experience in the wider world that broadened their horizons.

Éowyn changes, reassessing her understanding of her future and desires in the course of the TTT and RotK. Théoden as well, for that matter, given the psychological poisoning that Wormtongue had wrought; his restoration to courage and hope is by any measure a psychological change.

And of course there is Boromir, his sense of order challenged by Aragorn's existence, his desire to be hero almost seduced by the call of the Ring, until he recognizes the error of his ways and sacrifices himself.

Michael Moorcock meant most of the characters don’t change. They return home and alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Drewy said:

Lobelia changes a bit too, I'd say, from the trauma of the Shire takeover. Perceptions of her from other hobbits change as well: she's respected as one of the few who really stood up to the invaders. And, of course, Bilbo and Thorin undergo changes in The Hobbit.

Denethor changes as well, going from a competent and strong-willed military leader to a man so shattered by despair he comes to suicide. 

Oh, and Gollum has a  tragic inner conflict with redemption and change, but ultimately falls back into his evil ways.

Lord Of The Rings came back alive, and most psychologically didn’t change. It is a lesser degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Michael Moorcock meant most of the characters don’t change. They return home and alive.

Well, that’s one definition of change.  But even there he’s wrong.  Boromir, Denethor, Smeagol, Theoden, and others die.  

Disliking an author’s choices with character and story is literally a matter of opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Well, that’s one definition of change.  But even there he’s wrong.  Boromir, Denethor, Smeagol, Theoden, and others die.  

Disliking an author’s choices with character and story is literally a matter of opinion.  

The main cast didn’t die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Lord Of The Rings came back alive, and most psychologically didn’t change. It is a lesser degree.

Huh, Sauron is more a force of nature than a character and is so greatly reduced by the destruction of his primary tool he will never be a controling force again.

Or did you think someone else was “the Lord of the Rings”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Drewy said:

Oh, and Gollum has a  tragic inner conflict with redemption and change, but ultimately falls back into his evil ways.

The real hero of the story, Samwise Gamgee, changes from a stumble-tongued gardener into a hero, husband and father.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Huh, Sauron is more a force of nature than a character and is so greatly reduced by the destruction of his primary tool he will never be a controling force again.

Or did you think someone else was “the Lord of the Rings”?

The Father Of Dragons was the real threat. Sauron was mostly cowardly in fear of Morgoth, and cut his finger cut off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

Cool take. No main character other than Leto and Kynes on the 'good' side dies in Dune - must be a bad book! 

Thufir Hawat dies toward the end of the book and Duncan Idaho does die in the first book...

But you are correct the body count may not be the best indicator of a book’s quality.

 

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Thufir Hawat dies toward the end of the book and Duncan Idaho does die in the first book...

But you are correct the body count may not be the best indicator of a book’s quality.

 

I didn't count Idaho since he comes back. You know, like Gandalf. 

Let's not look too closely at GoT if we're considering mortality rate in primary characters as a key metric of quality either. 

Edited by Vaughn
accidental spoiler tag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to write a novel in which everybody dies in the first couple of pages, and the rest are blank to symbolize the snows blowing over an empty wasteland of graves. 

Available for $21.99 + P & P and a five star rating on Amazon. 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Michael Moorcock meant most of the characters don’t change. They return home and alive.

 

 

That really isn't what the majority his problem with LotR was, which means that not only did you not understand Lord of the Rings, but you don't understand Epic Pooh either.

Edited by polishgenius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, *characters* in LOTR change significantly. (and I don't think Moorcock even disagrees) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Psychologically the characters don’t change.

Psychologically the characters change significantly. Frodo goes from an adventure-hungry youngster into a PTSD-scarred survivor. Merry and Pippin grow from rowdy troublemakers into leaders of hobbits. Sam grows into a hero.

And people got he other way too, Denethor, Boromir, even Saruman (though his fall is on a bigger timeline) Gollum changes significantly, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ser Drewy said:

I honestly still don't think he's properly read it. Last time I saw him being interviewed, he was calling Tolkien "a crypto-fascist" and arguing "nothing changes" in LOTR and that we go on a huge adventure and simply come back to how things started.

While I think it's not *entirely* fair, Tolkien's kind of conservative-catholic ecologism has certain touchpoints with certain types of fascism, so that charge largely depends on how far you stretch "crypto-"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vaughn said:

Cool take. No main character other than Leto and Kynes on the 'good' side dies in Dune - must be a bad book! 

Leto isn’t a good guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...