The second chapter of Fellowship is just fantastic. All the lore and history and grief and danger all layed out in one chapter, yet still so much more mystery is unlocked by it. I've been listening to the audiobooks on repeat for over a year now and I always find something new to daydream about.
Oh there is so much more Lore to explore; John R R's son Christopher spent his long life sorting it out and publishing it. And now that he has sadly passed there is enough that others has taken over!
I must disagree about Frodo being weak or lacking agency in the books. He rescued the other Hobbits by chopping the Barrow-Wight's hand off, tried to cut the Witch King's foot off, turned at the ford of Bruinen and stared the Nine down with sword drawn, and forced the Cave Troll to withdraw by stabbing it in the leg. Book Frodo is _tough_
I really loved the part where Gandalf asks Frodo to put the ring in the fire place and he's just disgusted by the thought of doing that. Why would you ever want to hurt the precious? He holds it in his hand and looks at it, noticing it has become thicker, more beautiful, more heavy, as if it's longing to be protected and the fire would scar it. Interesting how the ring is able to manipulate people just by changing the way it feels and looks.
Some context for those who're curious about the whole 'running around naked' thing. The hobbits were gripped by supernatural cold after their encounter with the Wight, and his advice was to warm up in the sunshine while he looked for their ponies (which were carrying their clothes and food). He also gave them some magical weapons from the grave's hoard.
I loved this video, I have been waiting for a video like this one for a while, as I haven't read the book, only watched the movies so I thought this was really great to learn the differences between the two 😁
Frodo's virtue, I think, is in his selfless humility. His battle is undoubtedly more spiritual than the others, but ultimately, Frodo is simply a hobbit who wanted peace and quiet, as all hobbits and most humans do, a scholar of sorts, who lives by himself (which automatically leads any introvert to relate to him), but he bravely chooses to take the Ring, willingly bearing it to Mordor-a thing he did not have to do. I love Sam as much as the next person, but one cannot really appreciate Sam without Frodo nor Frodo without Sam.
I first read Lord of the Rings when I was around 13- loved it ever since. On the large number of characters LOTR was not the point of the universe but rather Tolkien made his universe and just happens to write LOTR in it. But I will admit it can seem overwhelming at first. But that is why the world is so watertight so to speak as it came out of the universe compared to other writers who make the universe just thick enough to support the story. Good video can’t wait to see what you think of the whole thing.
You make an excellent point in that Middle-Earth was created independently of the story, it wasn't created FOR the story, and that does set it apart from many other fantasy works today. It is quite refreshing! :)
What a lovely video :). I first read Lord of the Rings when I was way to young but desperate for _anything_ of the fantasy variety. Needless to say "Concerning hobbits" was a serious damper as well as those ~100 pages of just hanging around the Shire. I wanted cool things with swords and fights! I re-read them a few times growing up and after a while of comparing LOTR with more contemporary fantasy (young adult stuff like Belgaraid & Wheel of Time) I realized this problem with way to much worldbuilding. Like they pass a hill somewhere and then we'll take a few pages of explaining how some elf king (son of another elf king, son of another elf king) died there by a poisoned arrow through his eye. Still I loved them for a while. I didn't remember Sam being so sassy but I like it, and also that you started the discussion points with concerning :). Nice nod. Like a friend of mine said once though, the movies are way better than the books. Thank you for sharing this.
Indeed, it takes a while for the cool fights to appear in Fellowship! And in my honest opinion, fight scenes aren't exactly Tolkien's strong suit. But he makes up for it in other places. :) And yes, the movies are amazing and have managed to condense the story into a somewhat fast-paced adventure, killing all those darlings that Tolkien was obviously too attached to. All the meandering in the Shire is one example, as well as Tom Bombadil. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)
Frodo and Sam come from Tolkien's experiences in WW1. In WW1 middle and upper class men would become officers basically because they had a better education not that they were better warriors or leaders. Officers would be assigned a batman, basically a soldier who acts as a servant. Frodo is the middle/upper class officer, Sam is the working class batman.
I have heard that comparison, but I also know that Tolkien always denied these things and specifically said that he detested allegories. Even so, it does very much look like it and in this situation it might be ok to disregard authorial intent :)
@@ArnellaHobler Sam as the lower-class manservant of his master, Frodo, isn't an allegory; it's just the way things worked in turn-of-the-century England. Tolkien says he dislikes allegory, but he WROTE allegories. His stories "Smith of Wooton Major" and especially "Leaf by Niggle" are unapologetic allegories. What Tolkien disliked was when people would say that a story was an allegory so they could say they "solved" the story. "Mordor is Germany. The Ring is the bomb. I understand what The Lord of the Rings is all about now." Allegory has a long medieval tradition that Tolkien knew all about.
When you're older and re-read the Lord of the Rings, you may find yourself glad of the slow pace. I do not believe the Lord of the Rings was written for children and teenagers. This is fairytale literature for adults.
I think you read a novel, he wrote a mythology. People need to understand the difference. You should read this like you're reading a Greek mythology where all the gods and their powers are detailed and explained. You can't read this like a novel.
He did indeed write a whole mythology! I would agree with your statement in regards to the Silmarillion, but I still think you can read LOTR as novels since they do follow a narrative structure across all three books. But it is of course important to remain mindful of the extended lore "between the lines".
@ArnellaHobler I do agree that you can read this like a novel but with the understanding that it is a small piece of a greater world. I do enjoy your perspective, though, and will continue to watch and of course disagree with some of your takes. Lol
I'm a massive fan of Tolkien, but I wholeheartedly agree with Arnella here, that LotR is meant to be enjoyed as a novel. However, what I would argue is that the book is best enjoyed as an historical artifact of Middle-earth masquerading as a novel. The info-dumps and slow pacing are part and parcel of the way Tolkien approached his whole legendarium: that is, a collection of annals, legends, myths, and first- and second-person accounts of historical events, written, translated, and compiled by the various characters
![The History of Morgoth [COMPILATION] | Tolkien Explained](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ktet64d9O-c/mqdefault.jpg)
The second chapter of Fellowship is just fantastic. All the lore and history and grief and danger all layed out in one chapter, yet still so much more mystery is unlocked by it. I've been listening to the audiobooks on repeat for over a year now and I always find something new to daydream about.
They really are so full of lore, there will always some new detail when revisiting the story that catches your attention.
Oh there is so much more Lore to explore; John R R's son Christopher spent his long life sorting it out and publishing it. And now that he has sadly passed there is enough that others has taken over!
I must disagree about Frodo being weak or lacking agency in the books. He rescued the other Hobbits by chopping the Barrow-Wight's hand off, tried to cut the Witch King's foot off, turned at the ford of Bruinen and stared the Nine down with sword drawn, and forced the Cave Troll to withdraw by stabbing it in the leg.
Book Frodo is _tough_
I suppose I am a little unfair in my harsh treatment of Frodo! 😅
@@ArnellaHobler
That's cool. 😁
Great video by the way, I hope I didn't seem petulant because that was not my intention.
I really loved the part where Gandalf asks Frodo to put the ring in the fire place and he's just disgusted by the thought of doing that. Why would you ever want to hurt the precious? He holds it in his hand and looks at it, noticing it has become thicker, more beautiful, more heavy, as if it's longing to be protected and the fire would scar it. Interesting how the ring is able to manipulate people just by changing the way it feels and looks.
That's such a subtle detail, really easy to miss when reading for the first time!
Some context for those who're curious about the whole 'running around naked' thing.
The hobbits were gripped by supernatural cold after their encounter with the Wight, and his advice was to warm up in the sunshine while he looked for their ponies (which were carrying their clothes and food).
He also gave them some magical weapons from the grave's hoard.
It is also a celebration of life and purity and innocence.
I loved this video, I have been waiting for a video like this one for a while, as I haven't read the book, only watched the movies so I thought this was really great to learn the differences between the two 😁
Frodo's virtue, I think, is in his selfless humility. His battle is undoubtedly more spiritual than the others, but ultimately, Frodo is simply a hobbit who wanted peace and quiet, as all hobbits and most humans do, a scholar of sorts, who lives by himself (which automatically leads any introvert to relate to him), but he bravely chooses to take the Ring, willingly bearing it to Mordor-a thing he did not have to do.
I love Sam as much as the next person, but one cannot really appreciate Sam without Frodo nor Frodo without Sam.
The philosophy of the hobbit lifestyle does play a huge part in Frodo's and Sam's characters. And I agree, they really do complete each other
I first read Lord of the Rings when I was around 13- loved it ever since. On the large number of characters LOTR was not the point of the universe but rather Tolkien made his universe and just happens to write LOTR in it. But I will admit it can seem overwhelming at first. But that is why the world is so watertight so to speak as it came out of the universe compared to other writers who make the universe just thick enough to support the story. Good video can’t wait to see what you think of the whole thing.
You make an excellent point in that Middle-Earth was created independently of the story, it wasn't created FOR the story, and that does set it apart from many other fantasy works today. It is quite refreshing! :)
What a lovely video :). I first read Lord of the Rings when I was way to young but desperate for _anything_ of the fantasy variety. Needless to say "Concerning hobbits" was a serious damper as well as those ~100 pages of just hanging around the Shire. I wanted cool things with swords and fights! I re-read them a few times growing up and after a while of comparing LOTR with more contemporary fantasy (young adult stuff like Belgaraid & Wheel of Time) I realized this problem with way to much worldbuilding. Like they pass a hill somewhere and then we'll take a few pages of explaining how some elf king (son of another elf king, son of another elf king) died there by a poisoned arrow through his eye.
Still I loved them for a while.
I didn't remember Sam being so sassy but I like it, and also that you started the discussion points with concerning :). Nice nod.
Like a friend of mine said once though, the movies are way better than the books.
Thank you for sharing this.
Indeed, it takes a while for the cool fights to appear in Fellowship! And in my honest opinion, fight scenes aren't exactly Tolkien's strong suit. But he makes up for it in other places. :)
And yes, the movies are amazing and have managed to condense the story into a somewhat fast-paced adventure, killing all those darlings that Tolkien was obviously too attached to. All the meandering in the Shire is one example, as well as Tom Bombadil. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)
Frodo and Sam come from Tolkien's experiences in WW1. In WW1 middle and upper class men would become officers basically because they had a better education not that they were better warriors or leaders. Officers would be assigned a batman, basically a soldier who acts as a servant. Frodo is the middle/upper class officer, Sam is the working class batman.
I have heard that comparison, but I also know that Tolkien always denied these things and specifically said that he detested allegories. Even so, it does very much look like it and in this situation it might be ok to disregard authorial intent :)
@@ArnellaHobler Sam as the lower-class manservant of his master, Frodo, isn't an allegory; it's just the way things worked in turn-of-the-century England.
Tolkien says he dislikes allegory, but he WROTE allegories. His stories "Smith of Wooton Major" and especially "Leaf by Niggle" are unapologetic allegories. What Tolkien disliked was when people would say that a story was an allegory so they could say they "solved" the story. "Mordor is Germany. The Ring is the bomb. I understand what The Lord of the Rings is all about now." Allegory has a long medieval tradition that Tolkien knew all about.
@@ArnellaHobler Tolkien did not deny that Sam was based on many batmen he knew. That is different from an allegory.
👏 love love love me some LOTR 👏 lets get it❗
"as dull as it is entertaining" seems like it says nothing but the fact that it feels like something Tolkien would write makes it forgivable :P
When you're older and re-read the Lord of the Rings, you may find yourself glad of the slow pace. I do not believe the Lord of the Rings was written for children and teenagers. This is fairytale literature for adults.
I think you read a novel, he wrote a mythology. People need to understand the difference. You should read this like you're reading a Greek mythology where all the gods and their powers are detailed and explained. You can't read this like a novel.
He did indeed write a whole mythology! I would agree with your statement in regards to the Silmarillion, but I still think you can read LOTR as novels since they do follow a narrative structure across all three books. But it is of course important to remain mindful of the extended lore "between the lines".
@ArnellaHobler I do agree that you can read this like a novel but with the understanding that it is a small piece of a greater world. I do enjoy your perspective, though, and will continue to watch and of course disagree with some of your takes. Lol
I'm a massive fan of Tolkien, but I wholeheartedly agree with Arnella here, that LotR is meant to be enjoyed as a novel. However, what I would argue is that the book is best enjoyed as an historical artifact of Middle-earth masquerading as a novel. The info-dumps and slow pacing are part and parcel of the way Tolkien approached his whole legendarium: that is, a collection of annals, legends, myths, and first- and second-person accounts of historical events, written, translated, and compiled by the various characters
So you don’t like it.
I wouldn't say that. There were definitely parts that I found rather slow but overall I quite enjoyed it 😊