Reading The Lord of the Rings after watching the extended version of the movie - Page 3

HarryT · 12-31-2011, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The two stories are told in entirely different styles. The Hobbit is written as if for a much younger audience.

It is. "The Hobbit" is a children's book; "Lord of the Rings" is very definitely written for an adult audience.

DiapDealer · 12-31-2011, 09:56 AM

Yes, the intended target audience was a big part of the reason I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings more than its intro. But I still know many adults who prefer the Hobbit. I don't understand that myself, but I certainly allow for it.

shinew · 12-31-2011, 01:43 PM

I'm half way through Fellowship of the Ring, so far I'm enjoying it. It might take me awhile to finish because I prefer reading 3-4 books at once, but I find the additional details from the book provides more depth to the fantasy world Tolkien has created, and I like his narrative style.

ratkity · 01-02-2012, 12:28 PM

Happy New Year!

I must confess that a long long time ago when I was a wee girl, I read the Hobbit and loved it. I moved onto the LOTR trilogy and loved it until the fate of the ring was revealed. Then stopped reading. There is a lot of book left after that part and it wasn't until before the movies came out that I re-read the whole series. I guess I appreciated the story a bit more as an older adult.

Hugs,
Ratkity

bill_mchale · 01-03-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I also would have ended the movie version of Return of the King in Minas Tirith after Aragorn says; "My friends. You bow to no one." (fade to black). I was never much of a fan of the Scouring of the Shire and the "off to the Grey Havens" portions of the book. I only need one ending not three or four.

Well they did cut the Scourging of the Shire out of the movies. As for the Grey Havens part, I am glad they included it. Yes, it is kind of anti-climactic in movie terms but, it does show that Frodo's sacrifice to destroy the Ring was permanent; things were not merely returned to the Status Quo Ante.

--
Bill

bill_mchale · 01-03-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is. "The Hobbit" is a children's book; "Lord of the Rings" is very definitely written for an adult audience.

I am pretty sure Tolkien started "The Lord of the Rings" intending it for a similar target audience as the Hobbit, which helps explain the inclusion of Tom Bombadil and a few other incidents in the first part of the book.

--
Bill

tecweston · 01-03-2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am pretty sure Tolkien started "The Lord of the Rings" intending it for a similar target audience as the Hobbit, which helps explain the inclusion of Tom Bombadil and a few other incidents in the first part of the book.

--
Bill

The movies follow the same sort of tone, light and fanciful while they're in the Shire, but dark and ominous once they leave. One could argue that also helps show how idyllic the Hobbits' lives are and how scary it is for them to leave, but I think it also has a lot to do with the "children's book" tone that the first few chapters of the book have. Tom Bombadil fits with that tone but not with the more adult tone the book has towards the middle and end, and not only would have been out of place in the movie but doesn't really move the story along either.

Kevin8or · 01-03-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am pretty sure Tolkien started "The Lord of the Rings" intending it for a similar target audience as the Hobbit, which helps explain the inclusion of Tom Bombadil and a few other incidents in the first part of the book.

Tolkien said that he intended LOTR for an adult audience from its inception, whereas he wrote The Hobbit for his son while his son was a child/juvenile. (Why he included Tom Bombadil, I've no idea.)

DiapDealer · 01-03-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

(Why he included Tom Bombadil, I've no idea.)

I blame the Longbottom Leaf.

drofgnal · 01-04-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Tolkien said that he intended LOTR for an adult audience from its inception, whereas he wrote The Hobbit for his son while his son was a child/juvenile. (Why he included Tom Bombadil, I've no idea.)

Tolkien was highly influenced in his writings by Beowulf. One noteable attribute of Beowulf is the inclusion of stories within the stories. The main story takes a diversion to focus on a particular thread of another story. This helps explain diversionary threads of the story like Tom Bombadil. You frequently see this in LOTR when Gandalf relates some past story of middle earth to the group that seemingly has only ancillary relevance to the main story.

WillAdams · 01-04-2012, 09:43 AM

Removing Bombadil and the Barrow Downs seriously detracts from how moving Merry's part in the slaying of the Lord of the Nazgul is --- I'm sorry, tossing a bundle of swords onto a bed is a cheap substitute.

``So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.''

pdurrant · 01-04-2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Removing Bombadil and the Barrow Downs seriously detracts from how moving Merry's part in the slaying of the Lord of the Nazgul is --- I'm sorry, tossing a bundle of swords onto a bed is a cheap substitute.

Yes. I think Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs definitely add to the story, and aren't just something that Tolkien 'accidentally' left in.

I can see the difficulty in filming it, as doing it without making Tom ridiculous may be hard. But he is part of the story.

cearbhallain · 01-04-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Yes. I think Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs definitely add to the story, and aren't just something that Tolkien 'accidentally' left in.

I can see the difficulty in filming it, as doing it without making Tom ridiculous may be hard. But he is part of the story.

Do you think that Bombadil is there to explain how the ring must be dealt with decisively? Frodo knows that it would be safe if left with Bombadil because he has no need for absolute power. On the other hand, Bonbadil would forget about it and it would probably eventually fall into the wrong hands. It's always tempting to decide by not deciding, or to decide by default. Thematically I think it makes a point about responsibility and follow through.

Kevin8or · 01-04-2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Removing Bombadil and the Barrow Downs seriously detracts from how moving Merry's part in the slaying of the Lord of the Nazgul is --- I'm sorry, tossing a bundle of swords onto a bed is a cheap substitute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cearbhallain

It's always tempting to decide by not deciding, or to decide by default. Thematically I think it makes a point about responsibility and follow through.

Agreed. The Bombadil side-trip adds to the main story and generally to the richness of the world. Bombadil, sui generis, is possibly the first sentient being to inhabit Middle-Earth, and still he lives.

The compromise I've made is to usually read the Bombadil portion but to skip the lion's share of rhyming and singing.

PeterLewis1709 · 01-11-2012, 08:32 AM

I find that this is the beauty of reading books more than once. first time round you get the story, after that every re-read allows you to focus on different aspects of the story. With LOR there is so much in it that You can pick and choose where you go.

The films were good also in their own right and well done to Peter Jackson for visualising it.

My thoughts are that books require you to excercise your imagination. if I had been given an input into the movies I would have included Frodo's moving away from Bagend in Fellowship of the Ring and the journey through the forest to Tom Bombadil as these are really the first inklings the Hobbits get that the world is stranger and nastier than they expected.

I always thought that the Hobbit was ripe for an epic movie as it ticks all the right boxes.

01-02-2012, 12:28 PM	#34
ratkity Enthusiast Posts: 34 Karma: 37892 Join Date: Dec 2011 Device: Old Sony, Kindle 3G, Kindle Fire	Happy New Year! I must confess that a long long time ago when I was a wee girl, I read the Hobbit and loved it. I moved onto the LOTR trilogy and loved it until the fate of the ring was revealed. Then stopped reading. There is a lot of book left after that part and it wasn't until before the movies came out that I re-read the whole series. I guess I appreciated the story a bit more as an older adult. Hugs, Ratkity Last edited by ratkity; 01-02-2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: edited a bit

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is the best "the lord of the rings" eBook version?	Julien Pham	Reading Recommendations	30	12-16-2011 02:16 AM
Lord of the Rings?	netgeist	Barnes & Noble NOOK	30	12-31-2010 08:10 AM
Lord of the Rings ebook?	Pookeysgirl	Reading Recommendations	9	12-06-2010 02:43 AM
Lord of the Rings	LibraryGoddess	Sony Reader	10	04-21-2009 02:21 AM
Lord of the Rings for $1.99	Alexander Turcic	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	4	06-02-2003 02:24 AM

12-31-2011, 09:56 AM	#32
DiapDealer Grand Sorcerer Posts: 28,574 Karma: 204127028 Join Date: Jan 2010 Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD	Yes, the intended target audience was a big part of the reason I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings more than its intro. But I still know many adults who prefer the Hobbit. I don't understand that myself, but I certainly allow for it.

12-31-2011, 01:43 PM	#33
shinew Addict Posts: 309 Karma: 1008082 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: NYC Device: Kindle PW, K4 Touch, iPad2, Samsung Galaxy S II	I'm half way through Fellowship of the Ring, so far I'm enjoying it. It might take me awhile to finish because I prefer reading 3-4 books at once, but I find the additional details from the book provides more depth to the fantasy world Tolkien has created, and I like his narrative style.

01-04-2012, 09:43 AM	#41
WillAdams Wizard Posts: 1,258 Karma: 3439432 Join Date: Feb 2008 Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (300ppi), Samsung Galaxy Book 12	Removing Bombadil and the Barrow Downs seriously detracts from how moving Merry's part in the slaying of the Lord of the Nazgul is --- I'm sorry, tossing a bundle of swords onto a bed is a cheap substitute. ``So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.''

01-11-2012, 08:32 AM	#45
PeterLewis1709 Member Posts: 22 Karma: 525996 Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Northamptonshire Device: Archos 101, Kindle 4NT	I find that this is the beauty of reading books more than once. first time round you get the story, after that every re-read allows you to focus on different aspects of the story. With LOR there is so much in it that You can pick and choose where you go. The films were good also in their own right and well done to Peter Jackson for visualising it. My thoughts are that books require you to excercise your imagination. if I had been given an input into the movies I would have included Frodo's moving away from Bagend in Fellowship of the Ring and the journey through the forest to Tom Bombadil as these are really the first inklings the Hobbits get that the world is stranger and nastier than they expected. I always thought that the Hobbit was ripe for an epic movie as it ticks all the right boxes.

Advert

Advert