reading lord of the rings for the first time | part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Hey guys!
So I've finally gotten around to continuing my Lord of the Rings book series read. Here are all my thoughts and reactions while reading The Two Towers!
Find my part 1 thoughts reading Fellowship of The Ring: • reading lord of the ri...
♥ Nici
SOCIALS
TWITTER | / nicsandnacs
INSTAGRAM | / nicsandnacs
LETTERBOXD | letterboxd.com/...
#TheLordOfTheRings #TheTwoTowers
Which is your favourite book & movie? Reading these books makes my favourite movie jump around so much. Loved this book! Can't wait to read Return of the King :)
It has nothing to do with fantasy like lotr cause I’m more of a contemporary gal. One of my absolute faves is red white and royal blue. The movie is coming out on august 11 and I just can’t wait for it!
I’m totally a romance reader. High fantasy is way out of my element. Still haven’t read RW&RB but can’t wait to watch the movie. It’s been on my tbr for so long 🩷
There is a section in the Appendices at the end of Return of the King that is a 5-ish page summary of the love story between Aragorn and Arwen. It includes how they met, the conditions of their betrothal, and summarizes the rest of their lives together, including their final mortal goodbye. The movies just took bits and pieces of this and interspersed it into the main narrative, including a lot of the dialogue by Elrond in the Two Towers movie, some of which is word-for-word from this section.
Arwen was a very late addition to the drafting the novel, and Tolkien himself basically said he really needed another full draft to incorporate her into the main narrative the way she deserved, but he had already spent like 17 years writing the book and went, "I'll just stick an extra note in the appendices."
04:32 It isn't a movie. It is a book. They are different, and you are actually describing in your reaction why it works.
10:02 I see what you mean, but I also don't like how Gimli became the butt of jokes instead of the wise warrior poet he is in the books. Legolas and Gimli are more prominent in the films.
11:12 Oh yeah that was a lovely change, giving Merry and Pippin something really nice at that moment.
12:19 The books have a very strong sense of realism, because they lack the jump cuts across time that movies do all the time--and thus give a very inaccurate sense of time. HOnestly, the films make you feel from the time Frodo left till he came back was maybe three or four months when it was three times that or more.
13:13 BUT WHEN YOU READ THE BOOK FOR THE FIRST TIME YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. Or you wouldn't if you haven't seen the films. You keep doing this--express impatience that the books are not like the movies made many, many decades after the books were published.
14:35 Well of course not. You don't have the life cycle of a tree, i.e. living for thousands and thousands of years. You'd find living among the elves maddening as well.
15:40 It was how people conveyed things in a society with few books, no radio, no recorded music, etc. And it is part of the ebb and flow of this world. Expecting or hoping the people in this world to live at the fast pace of life of 2023 is just...wrong.
18:15 You did know this is a long book, right? I mean, a really long book? Written before the advent of TV much less the internet.
19:24 It is a BOOK not a movie!!!!!!
22:32 Eowyn is actually my favorite character.
24:56 Aragorn (this is not a spoiler since it only comes out in the Appendices) was raised by Elrond, who loves him as a father would. He told Aragorn that Arwen would only be wed to a mortal man who was King of Gondor and Arnor (the ancient Northern Kingdom). For decades, then, Aragorn worked and prepared himself for the throne. The books, if you pay attention, shows Aragorn as a very inspiring and wise leader who is not reluctant to be King, but instead is firmly determined to become the best possible King he can be, for that alone with not only save the world but give him the wife he so totally, absolutely adores. Yeah, even Tolkien thought a lot more of that story belonged in the novel, but said he couldn't figure out how to work it in.
29:46 I totally agree! This simplified things, made Eomer more central, and also frankly make the battle more visually exciting.
31:47 Yeah, because film is more visual. It also IMHO function ultimately as a trap. Helm's Deep was sooooo good on film that they had to make the battle in RETURN OF THE KING even better, which knocked the whole story slightly but profoundly off balance. IMHO.
35:10 The films (sometimes too much IMHO) insisted on putting tension and conflict in overt forms, especially between characters, that were far more subtle in the novel.
37:57 Peter Jackson and company were focused on the fights and battles and such. Which is not what the book is about. It just isn't. And as it goes on, more and more nuance is lost. For example, the fact Aragorn and Theoden got along so well was a nice little hint that Aragorn IS a king, even if he as yet has no realm or crown. That is one reason he will make a very good one, because he has literally spend a human lifetime preparing to be a good one.
38:22 You are literally comparing how thrilling a movie scene was, with you already knowing the outcome, as opposed to the experience of reading the book without knowing that. I still remember the thrill of reading how the Ents took Isengard in the book.
39:10 No! What happens in the book is the equivalent of a flashback. And--again--the book is not an action adventure story about combat. That is not the focus. All the battles are a side story.
41:09 Uh...no the book is not like Andy Serkis. Andy Serkis is the like the book.
45:18 Tolkien even said he wept for Gollum/Smeagol. After all, he never asked to be turned into this...thing. Some little shreds of the Hobbit he once was still peak out, and part of that is a genuine devotion that eventually grows towards Frodo.
46:06 Oh yeah, that scene was brilliant!
47:50 Well, yeah, he has the same issues but he's more of an adult. The thing I hate about movies is that so often even middle aged people or smart, wise people end up acting like angry, traumatized teenagers.
50:14 Exactly!!!!!!
Yes, when I first read the books, I skimmed the songs too, lol. And this was a decade before we had the movies, so for me, it wasn't a movie comparison thing.
Tolkein based the themes and structure of this story on Norse tales, and because songs were how they kept their oral traditions and history, I imagine using songs felt more authentic to him. Plus, he was a bit of a poet himself, so in all that context, it makes sense. It's just that today, especially having the movies to compare it to, it can feel more like filler.
I bet for those more musically inclined, people that can hear a tune in their heads while reading the songs, it's really joyful. I had a friend who's dad read the books to them when they were kids, and he would sing the songs to them. So for her, the songs are her favorite parts. For me though? Nope, skimmed 😅
Edit: I was really frustrated with their adaptation of Faramir from the books to the movie. Faramir was one of my favorite characters in the books, so when I watched the movies, I was like "WTF, who IS this?" 😅 I think they did it to hammer home how easily men were corrupted by the ring, to give a much more clear comparison to how hardy and pure hobbits were in comparison. But them almost destroying Faramir's character to do it bugged the crap out of me.
The songs are one of my favorite things about LotR and The Hobbit, but I've also been playing music since I was old enough to hold up a trumpet. Never considered that they might bore others
@@JBWinter You're so lucky! I WISH I had the kind of mind that could engage with them! Like Tom Bombadil's whole thing was joyful singing, so I felt like I was missing out on a key component of his character.
I was so delighted to hear them come to life in the movies. But just reading them without being able to "hear" them just made me frustrated.
Tolkien famously LOVED trees and the protection of nature. It only makes sense that the chapter devoted to the protectors of the forests and their culture would be the longest.
The reason Boromir's death happens at the beginning of The Two Towers instead of the end of The Fellowship of the Ring is that The Fellowship of the Ring is Frodo's story, told entirely from his point of view; and he isn't around for Boromir's death (and doesn't know about it until much later).
This is true. I’d expand on this and note that in several places in the books, Tolkien does some “telling” instead of “showing” (such as when the ents attack Isengard) because he doesn’t want the reader to know what has happened yet. Tolkien usually adopts the perspective of the least informed person, and this approach is effective when you don’t know how the story unfolds. But if you’ve seen the movies many times (like many of us), the element of surprise is lost and it can seem less exciting. For a first time reader (and not having seen the movies) it’s very compelling.
I admit to skimming or skipping many of the poems or songs while reading on my own. Then, I read these books to my kids. Being forced to read or "sing" these passages gave me a newfound appreciation for them.
Not a spoiler but I am looking forward to your Return of the King reading. There is a major part gone in the film that had it been included would have required a 4th film to be made. It’s the biggest change from the book to film.
Ooo can’t wait!
For the romance you might want to check appendixes at the end of Return of the King
Will do! Thanks 🩷
I'm glad that you followed through and read *The Two Towers,* and am looking forward to your video of the final book. The last third of that one is appendices - - historical tales of earlier times, notes on calendars, the Elvish language, etc. I'd say more but won't spoil it for you.
Music and poetry is vitally important in Tolkien's universe. If you ever read *The Silmarillion,* you'll learn that the universe as we know it was conceived as song. Those of us who lived long before the movies came out had to content ourselves with regular re-readings of the books, and the songs and poems are an integral part of that.
Tom Bombadil is such an anomaly, I can see why Peter Jackson didn’t put him in the movies lol. I don’t think movie audiences would take to well to him being in them breaking up the action and seriousness of the movies. He’s a weird character, but Tolkien himself said that he’s supposed to have no explanation and be enigmatic.
Gimli and Legolas do have a similar arc in the books as in the movie, it's just that a lot of it happens in Fellowship. In the book, when the Company reaches Lothlorien, Gimli and Legolas are very much combative, especially when the Elves demand Gimli be blind-folded to brought before Galadriel and Celeborn. It isn't until they spend some time together there by themselves that they start to soften on each other, which is similar to the film, where it's Gimli's affection and respect of Galadriel that seems to make Legolas like him much more.
The saddest part of the Cirith Ungol section of the books is the moment where Sam and Frodo are resting on the climb up. Gollum returns to find them dozing and Gollum reaches out to touch Frodo because he is feeling the weight of five hundred years possessing the Ring. He wants kindness but Sam wakens and only sees Gollum pawing at Frodo and kicks him away. It is a tragic moment that sets in motion leading the Hobbits to Shelob and ultimately Gollum falling into Mount Doom. The films short hand a vast amount of characterization for the visual plot telling conventions of film. The films lose a tremendous amount of rich character development for the convenient visual development.
I didn't care about the songs either. Until I read Silmarillion. And then when I read LotR again I loved the songs as they were recounting all the epics from Silmarillion.
I love listening to the songs, or singing them myself. Reading the lyrics is a lot less engaging, so I also didn't read them properly the first time through.
Treebeard is a lovely character, and the story of him and his people is so evocative and sad. I never felt like I wanted to get back to the other characters more quickly - as Treebeard would say, there's no need to be hasty.
Reading LotR is a hike through a beautiful landscape to me, not like a marathon. What we see along the way is more important than getting to Minas Tirith or Orodruin.
I hope it won’t be another 2 years to get RotK, lol?
I have skipped the poems(I don’t think of them as songs because there’s no accompanying melodies) as I have trouble reading them. I’m not much into poetry generally, but I’ve since listened to the Mythgard Academy podcast, Exploring Lord of the Rings & the host, Corey Olsen breaks them down & fleshes them out, so I find they make more sense. I have a few favorites, like the All that is Gold & the Earendil poem Bilbo recites in the Hall of Fire in Rivendell, but mostly I just skim over them.
I kind of agree the books are plot driven instead of character driven, however I don't think that's diminish the characterisation of them.
These books show you two things :
FIRST : people in reaction of power : are they the kind of people that desire power? The kind that don't want it but try to use it to achieve their goal? for what they believe is good? etc
SECOND : how the small minor and unrelated person to a situation can help. Barliman Butterbur in Bree or Farmer Maggot show that good things happen when the most random people decide to help.
So yes, this does not create drama but it demonstrate an understanding of Humanity way beyond the perspective of the movies. The books fringe on a philosophal study with a beautiful story.
My favorite Tolkien is The Silmarillion because of how much world building and mythology it explores, and the lack of songs lol. My favorite film, I always go back to Fellowship
This book is harder to read in our ADHD world. It’s not just about plot, it’s about entering into a world and being transformed by it. Which requires a longer attention span. I read the trilogy 5-6 times as a teenager and adored it. It’s been harder since seeing the films and having a smart phone. My appetite for slow and deep gratification has been damaged. Tolkien was writing to an audience who could still slow down and linger. Even be bored and just notice the sad beauty around them.
Okay, yeah the Treebeard chapter is long. -sigh- Much like this post.
I think what you are really experiencing is an anticipation of things that you know are coming. You are letting that anticipation tarnish the experience of the journey getting there. Like a little kid in a car trip asking "Are we there yet?"
This is not a judgement, and in fact, there is nothing wrong with this at all. You have to remember that these stories were written in a much different age where things moved at a much different pace. Do the names of the goblins mean anything to the story. No, they don't. Do the interactions between the hobbits and Treebeard mean anything to the story? No, they don't. Do the songs and poems mean anything to the story? No, they don't. But these details feed the soul, and make the reading journey worth it if you are able to look at them from another point of view.
Part of what makes Tolkien's storytelling so fun is that detail, that world building. It is also why the movies needed to be made, cutting out swathes of lore and details that weren't necessary to the story. The books are, to be honest, just not accessible to a lot of people, even back then, and more so now. The movies are MUCH more accessible and easier to consume. Reading these books is difficult, especially the first time, even if you are in to the style of the writing. Their value is in re-reading them, and finding a tidbit that you may have skipped or not liked the first time, and now it opens your eyes just a little bit to the world at large.
Also keep in mind that the books were written for Tolkien - surely to share with others, but first and foremost, they were his life's work, and he put everything he knew about story telling into them. Everything was a deliberate choice, and we may not understand all of his choices, because they were not made for us. He made those choices because he was crafting something that made sense to him. The films, on the other hand, couldn't be made that way. They were expensive, and needed to make money. So, naturally, the movies needed to be accessible to many, many people. The movies were made to be consumed by popular culture.
I think you mentioned that the movies are character driven and the books are plot driven. I think the first part is true - relatable characters are important if you are trying to get people to emotionally invest in the story. The books, though, are not so much plot driven as world driven. The stories, the characters, the songs and poems, the choice of stories that are included in the larger narrative - all of these are meant to expose us not to a story or a plot, but to a world. We get a glimpse of that world in The Hobbit. We get a larger glimpse of that world in The Lord of the Rings. We get a much larger look when we read The Silmarillion and of course his notes and other things in all of the ancillary books. While the story itself is compelling, for some of us the discovery and learning about Middle Earth becomes this driving force, because that is where the beauty (and tragedy) is. The stories are just the doorstep. And I think this is why some of us who love not just the stories, but Middle Earth itself struggle with the movies so much - they are all the flash, but little of the substance of (or exposure to) Middle Earth.
Now you have me waiting for The Return of the King! :) Keep it up - it's good stuff.
You're reading the book as if it should be paced and structured like a film. Yes, a film shouldn't normally introduce a one-off character who briefly appears, does something important, and then disappears from the story. But books are more like real life in this regard, where things like that happen often. Your issues with Bombadil, Glorfindel, the length of the Council of Elrond, and the Orcs who capture Merry and Pippin are all the same sort of complaint: "Why do these Orcs have names, if they're just going to die soon anyway?" is very telling. That's the complaint of someone who prefers movies, already knows the basic story, and won't be surprised by any major plot point. "Show, don't tell" is a movie/screenplay principle. It's not a principle that often makes sense in books. As someone else has mentioned, Tolkien's point there is that Aragorn (and the others with him) shouldn't be knowing what is happening in Isengard while they are fighting at Helm's Deep, and those are the characters we are following. So the reader shouldn't be clued into it while it's happening, either.
Can't wait for part three. The movies were done with so much love and respect for the books. As a fan of the books I was so nervous when they announced the movies.
12:55 “What the fuck you care, new fish? Doesn’t matter what his fuckin’ name was. He’s dead.” - Heywood, _The Shawshank Redemption_
But if the uruk hai did not have names, was tolkien supposed to call them orc 1 and 2?
"Why flesh them out at all, if they're just going to die?" is something someone would say who already knows the story, won't be surprised by something like that, and clearly prefers the way a movie is paced and structured, and the storytelling conventions movies tend to use. First time readers who haven't watched the movies don't KNOW that those orcs are doomed. They have no idea what will happen.
Not counting the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter series and just doing Stand Alone books I love The Outsiders, Rumble Fish, Tex, That Was Then This Is Now (by S.E. Hinton), and The Great Gatsby (by F. Scott Fitzgerald)
You should read these stand alone books next when you've finished Lord Of The Rings and also Compare them to the films
I honestly think you shouldn't keep reading the books, they're clearly not for you and you're not enjoying them. Don't force yourself to something you don't like just because of compromise, reading should be a joy, not torture
OMG why doesn't this book read like a movie?
❤
Hey Nics, I just wanted to drop by and let you know how much I enjoy your content! Your videos are always top-notch and I can tell you put a lot of effort into them. By the way, I'm a professional video editor and I would absolutely love the opportunity to collaborate with you. I've already worked with Franklin Miano and it was a great experience, so I'm eager to expand my connections in the UA-cam community. Keep up the fantastic work and let's make some awesome videos together! Thank you!
Please review the rings of power
dang thats the worst book adaptation to tv series ever!1 billion dollars to make 2 seasons?!!!! biggest money laundring I have ever seen!
Return is my favorite book and movie, Although I take points off the movie for omitting the chapter they took out, if you know you know, i don't want to spoil just incase
i fell asleep
In general, all the characters in the book are nobler and less dramatic than their counterpart in the movies.
I was like you the first time I read the book with regard to the poems and songs- they didn't really do anything for me and I rushed past them. But then I read The Silmarillion, and then when I read LOTR a second time, so many of the poems referenced things from the Silmarillion and they suddenly had an epic grandeur that I hadn't felt before.
I think maybe Tolkien's style of including extensive details and names and descriptions of random characters not essential to the story is because he is attempting to portray the novel as if it is based on the stories told by those who actually lived it.
If Merry and Pippin got to know the names of their captors they would certainly remember that and include that detail in the telling of their story and it would have been included in written version of their tale.
So the book is kind of like a travel log in the sense that it is being told by people who were there and saw strange things they never saw before.
If you go into a book just for story driven narrative that’s fast paced and basically a movie on paper this series is not for you. It is far less shallow than being there just to keep you entertained. The prose, the world building, the creation of keystone fantasy tropes, and yea the poetry (which is very skilfully written I might add) is what makes this a masterpiece of a book series and not just a bit of consumable entertainment. If you’re even skipping parts of the movies I can see why it’s not exactly doing it for you half the time.
That being said, in all fairness everyone is different so no shame.
Also the movies do some things better than the movies I agree.
The books get much better on further readings and when you’re actually invested in the world properly and not on a superficial level. You definitely won’t read or like the silmarillion, which is sad because the archaic language is exquisitely beautiful and the story is deep rich and vast, spanning thousands of years.
If you’ve read that though the poems and songs in the lotr books become amazing Easter eggs and add an even greater level of depth.
Hope you can enjoy the books a little bit at least. The next book is by far the best!
Ps: big love for book faramir ❤️
Talk about actual dialogue carried over to the films - when I first read Two Towers, I noticed how Eomer called the two horses over by name, Hasufel and Arod. The interaction was simply a commander commanding his soldiers. Horse and rider, at least in this scene, seemed to be on equal footing which speaks volumes about Rohan's culture. I never expected such a small detail to every be included in a film.
14:40 What a coincidence, I’m skipping the rest of this video. Bye. 🙄
Awesome. This is such a good series. You’re gonna love it! Unrelated, I just started The Forgotten World by Murray Leinster and it’s an amazing read if you’re into sci-fi.
Im going to go out on a limb here and say that the movies are the best version of the story ever put on film and the books ae the best version of the story in print.
There are things in the book I wish were in the movies and there are things in the movies that I wish were in the books. Such as Aragorn's sword. Way before there was ever a movie I was always bothered by the fact that he carried a broken sword all the time instead of an actual sword. It doesn't serve the plot at all and I think it was written that way for the purpose of exposition.
I didnt like the way the movie portrayed Shelob. Too realistic looking. Shelob is described as "like a spider", she should also have been a bit larger in comparison to Sam and appeared more ancient and grotesque. Instead it looked like a picture form a National Geographic magazine. I get it, real spiders are very scary to some people but I feel Shelob should have been portrayed as more of a large dark and hulking unnatural beast from a forgotten age.
We will.always support you. Keep working hard to achieve your goals.
So... you wanted Tolkien to narrate the Ents' attack on Isengard instead of Merry and Pippin narrating the Ents' attack on Isengard?
You do realize that "show not tell" doesn't mean the same thing in a book? In a book, to "show" something involves "telling" about it. Sometimes Tolkien chooses to put the story in the mouths of his characters instead of the mouth of his narrator.
Sounds like you just want to read a screenplay
In the Fellowship book there are a few subtle nods to Aragorn's relationship with Arwen, like Bilbo telling him that Arwen was at the feast, or when they stop at that one treehouse on their way to Caras Galadhon and he spaces out and walks around that hilltop speaking quietly to himself.
However, if you don't mind a slight spoiler, most of their relationship is described in the appendices at the end of Return of the King.
There is a part in this book where Aragorn and Theoden and company are on their way to Isengard at night time and they are caught in a storm of thunder and dust and earthquakes. This storm is actually the Ents and Huorns running past them through the night to casually disassemble Isengard! Treebeard describes this rushing as becoming "QUITE hasty" 😂
Tolkien had a knack for introducing characters and then never mentioning them again. Erkenbrand is a perfect example of that. One of the things the movies definitely did better.
Erkenbrand doesn't even sound like his real name! Sounds like Tolkien's version of "whatsisface"....
Can't wait till you graduate from Tolkien and enroll in Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time.
💪
Aragorn and Arwen's romance isn't in the novel text, but it is in the Appendices (the extra stuff at the end). Unfortunately, Tolkien thought it was less important and made it a footnote. Thank you, Peter Jackson.
I always skipped the songs and I most definitely skip both Tom Bombadil and the Ent chapters. You are not alone.
Glad I’m not the only one 🩵
I've read hundreds of books, I found audible like 8 months ago, There's absolutely 0 difference, the 1st time i heard this elitist idea that listening is somehow lesser than reading i laughed, You still have to actively participate in the experience or you're not gonna know what is in the book. I guess it's just a way to put themselves on a pedestal.