in other words, we never turn around to find someone we know suddenly appearing tall and great and shining and heroic, and then the next moment they're just themselves again.

Sections like this in the book, where Aragorn reveals himself, remind me of Christ's transfiguration, to a small extent (although I think I've mentioned this before ).

Now, see, I didn't see it like that at all. (Though it's a very interesting thing to consider...) I'd been thinking of it as a moment where Tolkien takes us inside Frodo's head. Have you ever had a moment where you're looking at something, and it's totally not the way it was five seconds ago? Maybe you're staring at a line of text, and the letters all rearrange themselves into gibberish. Or maybe (and this is a better example) it's a tree branch and the light is hitting it just so. And it's not the tree branch you were looking at for weeks and weeks. But then the sun goes behind a cloud, and it's pretty ordinary again.

Johobbit, I absolutely loved reading your post (even though it was long ). I completely agree with the statements below. (if anyone wants to see them in context here is the link

Yes, to be sure PJ changed the character arcs for dramatic tension, but the thing is this changed Tolkien's beloved and noble characters! What for? For a modern-day audience who doesn't even know what a true hero is? *calms herself down* And that's exactly one of the things that bothered me so much about Aragorn's change: no one should ever have to convince the true Aragorn of who he is or what his destiny is. Good grief! (That 'good grief' is to PJ, not to you. )

But Aragorn is not pure human; he's The Dúnadan; the heir of the throne of Gondor; of Númenórean ancestry! Sections like this in the book, where Aragorn reveals himself, remind me of Christ's transfiguration, to a small extent (although I think I've mentioned this before ).

The others I can forgive, because otherwise Faramir etc. come across as not human and the power of the ring's temptation is severely undermined.

Same defence for Faramir. Sam said in the book that Faramir reminded him of "Gandalf, of wizards"! And Faramir's response was that possibly Sam discerned from far away the air of Númenor. (Love that line!) Faramir was of a strong and heroic caliber, which is why he said that not if he found [the Ring] on the highway would he take it! That is one strong character, sadly demeaned/lessened in the movie.

( Note the following is my two cents worth I stuck it in here to keep johobbit’s quotes in order)Even in the book for a moment there was doubt as to whether or not Faramir would take the ring. But that was meant to be only a momentary doubt!

The term 'realistic' keeps coming up, but why does a formerly noble and heroic character have to be brought down to being 'realistic? Partly what endears folk to JRRT's epic tales is the fact that the most beloved characters rise above modern-day 'realism' and are true heroes, whom we long to emulate.

But I was just wondering, alot of time we focus on the negative, what were your most favorite parts of the books/movies?

True enough, Eru, which yet again proves our great love and loyalty for the original material. Why would anyone change this is beyond me?

FotR: Absolute total favorite ever, possibly in all three movies is when they introduce Strider at Bree. It is how I picture perfectly, Strider's feet on the table, hood up, smoking his pipe and his mud-stained boots. It's one of those parts that gives me goose-bumps it's so perfect.

Oh yes! Especially I like the part where we just see his attentive eyes lit up by the light of his glowing pipe.

I absolutely love that part too! In my opinion FotR was the best of the three movies. *is going to try very hard to focus on the positive, even though it is so much easier to find the negative * I have been thinking about the parts I really liked but have been having trouble, so it was very good to read what others said. I don’t remember who said the following (and am too lazy to look it up (I have two things someone else liked and they might not have been said by the same person), but I also liked that Gimli and Legolas had their Orc count and the part where the beacons light up (but not the way the first one was light (oops that is kind of negative). I like the part where Sam is talking about being in a story and the related stuff (it was very close to the book). I liked that the Extended edition of TTT they added the part with the trees (Hurons I think). I like when Gimli asks Aragon to toss him and not to tell the Elf. The scene with Gandalf and the Balrog is good too. The scene where Aragorn calls to the Riders of Rohan and they surround him is great too. I also like the part where Gimli says something about an Elf going underground when a dwarf would not. I wouldn’t say it is one of my favorite parts but the scene where they are climbing Mt Doom and the fight between Gollum and Frodo was well done. There! I only had one sort of negative comment. That has got to be a record for me.

So the Balrog would be, more or less, Sauron's.....peer?

I think that would be the case. Of course within the Order of Maia there are some Maiar (is that the right plural?) who are more powerful than others. Saruman was “greater” that Gandalf. The Valar also had a hierarchy within their order.

Gandalf, a maia himself and so of the same order as a balrog and Sauron (but on a different side, of course), would naturally struggle with such a foe, though the elves had much faded.

Gandalf was a maia but in his earthly form he was limited in the amount of power he could use. He was in a diminished form so to speak as were all of the wizards. That could also explain why the balrog was such a challenge for him. After he “died” (more like his spirit left the body since maia cannot be “killed” in a normal sense but their spirits can be banished or something like that), he might have been given / allowed to use more power. (Previous statements based on what I remember about the wizards from Unfinished Tales).

Whoa, I'm pretty outnumbered here. But I'm not debating from the purist point of view so I suppose I would be. (I can certainly understand.)

Ah well, we all have our own ways of looking at it. But remember that what works for a book does not always work for a movie. If the characters were all infallible, all totally sure of themselves, it would not make for an interesting movie, because then they do not appear, pardon the word, "human." Tolkien's characters were normal people, and that is what helped me personally to bond with them.

If the characters were all infallible, all totally sure of themselves, it would not make for an interesting movie, because then they do not appear, pardon the word, "human."

But they aren't infallible. If you are still talking about Aragorn, he was not always sure of himself. He knew that he was the rightful king, and that he would step up and take his place one day, but he also knew he would not be accepted by Denethor. He knew what he was supposed to do, but he did not know when the right time to do it was. Augh! Why can't I remember? There's something that's in the back corner of my mind where someone is asking Aragorn to do something, but Aragorn says he doesn't think it is his time because whatever it was would acknowledge he was the king or something like that. I could be totally wrong and dreamed it, but for some reason it's floating around in my mind. Augh!!!!!!!! *struggles to remember and then gives up cause she's too tired*

Oh my, what a great and fun discussion!

Okay, to respond:

I do have a question...are you a book purist? Um, did I say that the added plot point of Aragorn's weakness carves the way for Arwen?

Well, mostly, but not totally. How did you guess? A huge part of it is that I've loved this book for nearly 35 years, so I am rather attached to the original source material.

But, if I were a true book purist I wouldn't want anything changed, whereas I didn't mind certain things being left out: Tom Bombadil (although I would have loved the Barrow-downs left in) and I can even understand why PJ left out the Scouring of the Shire, but when it comes to changing, and moreover lowering the solid characters Tolkien sub-created ... *weeps* Oh, and btw, I wasn't thrilled over Arwen's expanded role, anyway. I realize she had to figure in the movies more, otherwise we'd forget about her but to have her come nigh unto death because of the 'evil that now spread from Mordor'?

Or are you saying that because Aragorn is so heroic he is not just a mere human like us?

I have always thought of the Dúnedain as a bit 'more' than a normal man. They do have very unique characteristics about them, which Eru mentioned, setting them apart.

Frodo and Sam were normal folk, and they became heroes in the end. Isn't what really endears people to characters is if they find something in common with them? At least, that is how it is with me. If a character has no weakness at all, he/she is too much like God or something, if you catch my drift?

Precisely! Every one of the 'heroes' (whether Aragorn, Frodo, or Sam) had their own weak points, so that's exactly it: they each rose above those at crucial times, and yet Tolkien doesn't shy away from the fact that each of them have a vulnerable side. As Pattertwigs Pal said, even Faramir had a moment of doubt, which made his refusal to take the Ring that much stronger and greater.

So do you want to see Aragorn turn into a blazing white figure when he sees the Argonath and suddenly become powerful?

No, not at all. In fact, I think that scene from the book would have looked pretty odd translated to film, so I'm not sure just how PJ could have done it differently, but what bothered me was it was such a contrast to what Tolkien wrote. No ideas, though, as to how it could have accurately been portrayed without looking a tad cheesy.

The point I'm trying to make: Why watch a movie that has infallible characters? After all, it's obvious they're going to win.

I wouldn't want to watch a movie like that either. See the second point up from here ^. It's the fact that the characters, especially the hobbits, are so 'normal', and then rise up, despite their fears and weaknesses, to confound the wise and great. Phenomenal stuff!

Please don't take anything wrong *gives a shudder*.

Oh my no, I didn't. I thoroughly enjoy this invigorating discussion. And on my part, too, I am rather passionate about this subject so pardons if I, unintentionally, come on rather strong. Let me know if I've missed answering anything.

He may be what you can call an elite form of the race, but that didn't exempt him from normal human behavior or feelings.

Right on!

So, Aragorn actually had a smidgen of elven blood in him. *tries to find out more by looking at the geneologies, and realizes she is not very knowledgeable about this area * Varnafinde, want to explain further? I do know that it was the Númenorean blood that ran very strong in his veins.

I seem to recall in the Sil one battle where Morgoth deployed dozens of these things onto the field and casualties were grievous for both sides. For some reason I want to say it was Angmar, thereabouts.

From what I've read, many Balrogs were destroyed when Angband, Morgoth's fortress, was destroyed in the First Age by the Valar. But in the Battle of *checks her notes* Dagor-nuin-Giliath ("Battle under the Stars"), Morgoth first sent Balrogs forth to wage battle with the Elves. The (in)famous Noldorin Elf, Fëanor, was killed by the Lord of the Balrogs, Gothmog. Apparently after the Beleriand wars, the remaining Balrogs went and hid underground, hence the disturbing of one deep in the Mines of Moria.

Mel, I really like your thoughts on Aragorn revealing his Kingly self here: I love how you described that.

Of course within the Order of Maia there are some Maiar (is that the right plural?)

Yep, "Maiar" is plural of Maia.

But remember that what works for a book does not always work for a movie. If the characters were all infallible, all totally sure of themselves, it would not make for an interesting movie, because then they do not appear, pardon the word, "human." Tolkien's characters were normal people, and that is what helped me personally to bond with them.

As I said above, I would not want to see a movie where every character is infallible and 'perfect' because you're right: one just can't relate to them. Tolkien's characters (greater lineage or not) had their own struggles, yet they showed integrity and honour during key times, and why PJ had to make them less so, I will never understand 'Though I do realize that the movie medium is different than a book, but to change such integral parts of key characters ... *trails off helplessly*

There's something that's in the back corner of my mind where someone is asking Aragorn to do something, but Aragorn says he doesn't think it is his time because whatever it was would acknowledge he was the king or something like that.

Are you thinking of the time in The RotK when Éomer and Imrahil encouraged Aragorn to "raise the banner of the Kings and display the tokens of Elendil's House" as he was getting ready to enter the city to help in the Houses of Healing. But Aragorn refused saying that "the time was unripe" and that he should be known then as simply "a captain of the Rangers" until the Lord Denethor should welcome him in. (At that time Aragorn did not yet know of Denethor's tragic end.) Good to hear from you, daughter of the King!

Also, Aragorn doubted himself much at Parth Galen when the Company was broken apart, and in the RotK when Halbarad brought him news from Elrond to "remember the Paths of the Dead", Aragorn briefly wondered about the wisdom of this. Anyway, just a couple more examples to show he wasn't invincible and was vulnerable.

I promise I will get on to all the positives sometime this week. Thanks for the stimulating thoughts, all, whether we differ on this issue or not. But, I do ask, what can I not keep these posts of mine on the shorter side? Again, sorry for this mammoth length.

Aragorn was actually part Elven from both sides of his family. Indeed he was a direct descendant of Elendil on his father's side, and his mother's side could also be traced back to Elendil, though not as directly. It's not as weird as it sounds because Aragorn's parents are many generations removed from Elendil's time.

Also, I believe that makes Aragorn and Elrond cousins. Elrond himself was of mixed Human/Elf ancestry, but chose to emphasize his Elven nature.

By the way Lady G, you're not alone, I'm not a "purist" either .

GB

Also, Aragorn doubted himself much at Parth Galen when the Company was broken apart, and in the RotK when Halbarad brought him news from Elrond to "remember the Paths of the Dead", Aragorn briefly wondered about the wisdom of this. Anyway, just a couple more examples to show he wasn't invincible and was vulnerable.

Yes indeed. At Parth Galen and all throughout the Three Hunters' journey afterwards, Aragorn expresses doubt about his choices. Even before that when he has to take over for Gandalf at Moria, he feels himself unfit and inadequate. Sounds pretty human to me!

And Aragorn is also self-conscious about his appearance. In Bree, he evinces a poignant insecurity; he wants the hobbits to trust and like him for himself, without extra proofs, "but there, my appearance is against me... I have rather a rascally look, have I not?" he says. And he keeps referring back to this. At one point he even admits that he wants to be taken on faith for himself, that he is so tired of being distrusted because of his unprepossessing looks. When Frodo says that a servant of the Enemy would "look more fair and feel more foul," Aragorn wryly laughs, saying that he must then look foul.

The whole idea of Aragorn's insecurity on this point pervades his speech in that section of the book. I was surprised how often it comes up, actually. This was first called to my attention by a Tolkien scholar, one of the first, who wrote an analysis of Aragorn way back in the 70s. I wish I could remember his name... it's in my thesis somewhere. This scholar did an amazing job of mining both Aragorn's character and also his relationship with Eowyn.

I understand those who say they can't identify with characters who are perfect all the time, but I think it's a moot point regarding LOTR because there are no characters in LOTR who are perfect all the time. Even Galadriel made some pretty bad mistakes (see The Silmarillion; isn't she involved somehow with the Kinslaying?).

It bothers me to see us taking liberties with the characters and dragging them down to "our level," rather than leaving them as Tolkien wrote them and seeking to emulate them if they are, as is claimed, so very exalted and moral.

I think what PJ missed in the books is that the hobbits are our stand-ins, the ones we are meant to identify with while moving through this strange and perilous realm of fantasy. They are our guides — no one else. Making the other cultures and characters too accessible to us weakens their power and mystery.

Jumping in the discussion...

I understand those who say they can't identify with characters who are perfect all the time, but I think it's a moot point regarding LOTR because there are no characters in LOTR who are perfect all the time. Even Galadriel made some pretty bad mistakes (see The Silmarillion; isn't she involved somehow with the Kinslaying?).

No, she was in the second group of Noldor that crossed Helcaraxe, and she probably fled from the other two. I wouldn't doubt that she would hold herself responsible for them, though, and she still made the grievous mistake of abandoning Valinor in the first place. The Ban is only lifted for her because she resists the temptation of the Ring.

I think what PJ missed in the books is that the hobbits are our stand-ins, the ones we are meant to identify with while moving through this strange and perilous realm of fantasy. They are our guides — no one else. Making the other cultures and characters too accessible to us weakens their power and mystery.

I don't think he missed it...I think we, as in the public at large, miss it and so the story had to adapt. One of the biggest considerations when adapting any story for a high profile major film is will it appeal to a wide enough audience (ie: make enough money). Right now, the artistic trend (in more than just film) is to see the internal struggle, not just hear a line of dialogue of a brief moment of self-doubt. Aragorn is a heroic figure, and just like with comic book superheroes we want to know what goes on behind the mask. We watch him succumb to his doubts and overcome them, and that is more inspirational than hearing him say he has doubts and moving on with the action, with those doubts having no later effect.

I've never identified with the Hobbits, not even when I read the books. They seemed too good, pure, and innocent for me to relate to, even though I knew they were supposed to represent the strength of the everyday person and they were supposed to be my eyes in the story. In a sense they are our perception of the story, but I think there's a very clear reason why the story of the Three Hunters and the Siege of Gondor is the most memorable and vivid part of the story for me. Yes, the Hobbits despaired and doubted and made mistakes, and acted human but there was always this barrier for me because they were so much a part of that strange and perilous realm of fantasy.

I felt the most relation to the Rohirrim in terms of who I felt was a stand-in. They are human, but they don't have that otherworldly aloofness that the Dunedain have, and they don't have the grandiose history of Gondor. They're just Men, plain and simple.

Oh, and btw, I wasn't thrilled over Arwen's expanded role, anyway. I realize she had to figure in the movies more, otherwise we'd forget about her but to have her come nigh unto death because of the 'evil that now spread from Mordor'?

I rather liked it because it was an expanded female role . I think it turned a little unnatural because when you see her come to rescue Frodo you don't immediately figure on her suddenly having a very important role (or at least I don't figure on it).

Frodo and Sam were normal folk, and they became heroes in the end. Isn't what really endears people to characters is if they find something in common with them? At least, that is how it is with me. If a character has no weakness at all, he/she is too much like God or something, if you catch my drift?

Precisely! Every one of the 'heroes' (whether Aragorn, Frodo, or Sam) had their own weak points, so that's exactly it: they each rose above those at crucial times, and yet Tolkien doesn't shy away from the fact that each of them have a vulnerable side. As Pattertwigs Pal said, even Faramir had a moment of doubt, which made his refusal to take the Ring that much stronger and greater.

Don't they eventually raise up over those weaknesses in the movie too?

So do you want to see Aragorn turn into a blazing white figure when he sees the Argonath and suddenly become powerful?

No, not at all. In fact, I think that scene from the book would have looked pretty odd translated to film, so I'm not sure just how PJ could have done it differently, but what bothered me was it was such a contrast to what Tolkien wrote. No ideas, though, as to how it could have accurately been portrayed without looking a tad cheesy.

That's kinda what I was getting at in the first place

He may be what you can call an elite form of the race, but that didn't exempt him from normal human behavior or feelings.

I agree.

So, Aragorn actually had a smidgen of elven blood in him.

Isn't that how he had that power over the athelas plant in the book, because he was Elvish?

Tolkien's characters (greater lineage or not) had their own struggles, yet they showed integrity and honour during key times, and why PJ had to make them less so, I will never understand 'Though I do realize that the movie medium is different than a book, but to change such integral parts of key characters ... *trails off helplessly*

I had thought Aragorn did [show integrity and honor] in the movie. (Frodo's a different matter...) So he didn't show it because he didn't want to be King at first? But I promise I will eventually reread the books and keep this particular concept of honor and integrity in mind, maybe then I will see a little more of the personality changes.

I think what PJ missed in the books is that the hobbits are our stand-ins, the ones we are meant to identify with while moving through this strange and perilous realm of fantasy. They are our guides — no one else. Making the other cultures and characters too accessible to us weakens their power and mystery.

Intriguing!

I promise I will get on to all the positives sometime this week. Thanks for the stimulating thoughts, all, whether we differ on this issue or not.

Yup, it's always interesting (for me included) to hear somebody else's take on it.
Ta Ta for now, but I'll be back.

I'd have to agree with Draugrín here... I never connected to the hobbits. I like them, but then again I don't.

Isn't that how he had that power over the athelas plant in the book, because he was Elvish?

Yes I do believe that would be why... his healing powers were because of what he was, "the hands of the King". Because he came from that line, and that he was Númenórean, and was partly elven, yes.

Are you thinking of the time in The RotK when Éomer and Imrahil encouraged Aragorn to "raise the banner of the Kings and display the tokens of Elendil's House" as he was getting ready to enter the city to help in the Houses of Healing. But Aragorn refused saying that "the time was unripe" and that he should be known then as simply "a captain of the Rangers" until the Lord Denethor should welcome him in. (At that time Aragorn did not yet know of Denethor's tragic end.)

That must be it. I haven't read LoR this year yet, shame on me, so it's not very clear in my mind.

Since some of us our focusing on the positive bits in the movie...........I like Frodo and Sam in Fellowship a lot, I think their friendship shines through nicely.
I like the council, especially the last bit where Sam runs in and says Mr. Frodo isn't going anywhere without me. And then when Pippin volunteers to go along and then asks where he's going makes me laugh every time. Come to think of it, I don't think there was anything in the first movie that I didn't like.
I like just about everything in TT too, especially the extended. This will sound weird, but I think one of my favorite parts is "Gollum's Song" during the credits. Yea, I sound weird, but I like that song.
As for RotK, I absolutely love it when Sam picks up Frodo and carries him up Mt. Doom. And when he's fighting orcs and yells "And that's for my Gaffer!" Hmmmm. I think I like Sam. Again, I really like the song in the credits. Sure, I'm not fond of some of the changes, but for the most part, the movies complement the books, instead of making the viewer/reader choose which one they prefer. The movies are almost the ultimate visual companion to the books.

Good to hear from you, daughter of the King!

Thanks! I would be on more, but there's these things called homework and life and rehearsal and school concert, well, you get the idea.

All righty, I've done a wee bit of reading because I wanted to know exactly who Aragorn got the Elven genes from, 'cause even though I've read it before, I've just plumb forgotten. Aragorn is a descendant of Elendil and Elendil descended from Ëarendil and Elwing, both half-elven: Tuor (man) and Idril (elf) begat Ëarendil; Elwing's grandparents were Beren (man) and Lúthien (elf). So, yeah ... and cool!

Yes indeed. At Parth Galen and all throughout the Three Hunters' journey afterwards, Aragorn expresses doubt about his choices. Even before that when he has to take over for Gandalf at Moria, he feels himself unfit and inadequate. Sounds pretty human to me!

Yes indeed from me, too. Aragorn was nigh overwhelmed by having to 'fill Gandalf's shoes', so to speak (and with no disrespect). One can hear despair in his voice when he desperately states as he held dead Boromir's hand in his "All that I have done today has gone amiss. What is to be done now?" And this isn't the first time he says that, if I recall.

The whole idea of Aragorn's insecurity on this point pervades his speech in that section of the book. I was surprised how often it comes up, actually.

That would be an interesting topic on which to write a paper!

I've never identified with the Hobbits, not even when I read the books.

And I'm just the opposite. I can identify with their lifestyle and characteristics in regards to some of the deep longings of my heart: simple lifestyle, love of nature, steadfastness of spirit, loyal and courageous, homebodies, and more surface areas such as their love of food, music, and stories ... "I am, in fact, a hobbit in all but size."

That's kinda what I was getting at in the first place

Yeah. I came at it via quite a circuitous route, didn't I? Although I still would have liked to see more authority and power as Ellesar passed under the carved shadows of his ancestors.

Don't they eventually raise up over those weaknesses in the movie too?

Yes, for the most part (I still think Aragorn seems rather wimpy in his coronation scene ), but the movies undermine the way in which Tolkien portrayed them in the book: Gandalf wouldn't have cowered before the Lord of the Nazgúl; Frodo would never have sent Samwise away, and Sam wouldn't have gone!; Faramir was a stronger and more secure man than how the movies portrayed him; despite Aragorn's uncertainty about leading the company after Gandalf's fall, and then some of his decisions he saw as going awry, he knew the big picture and what his destiny was: the throne of Gondor!

I had thought Aragorn did [show integrity and honor] in the movie.

In some lines PJ actually made him the opposite of who he was in the book: "I have never wanted that power". I tremble as I write that and reach for the remote to press "Fast Forward".

Isn't that how he had that power over the athelas plant in the book, because he was Elvish?

I thought the main reason is because of his Númenorean and kingly blood-line ("The hands of the king are the hands of a healer"), which, as I wrote above, includes Elvish waaay back, but I don't believe that wasn't his main 'call to fame'. An aside: don't you just get the biggest kick over Ioreth? She cracks me up! At least, in the book she's just great; in a movie she wouldn't translate as well, methinks, and in real life? Heaven forbid!

Great to hear of the parts you really enjoy in the films, daughter of the King.

Who here has read Tolkien's biography by Humphrey Carpenter? If you haven't, I strongly encourage you to do so. Another book that is nigh a 'must' is Tolkien's Letters, edited by Mr. Carpenter. These give you such solid, fun, interesting, and informative insight into JRRT, and his relationships with his children (particularly Christopher) and the Inklings (some of my favourite letters). And now, since my paperback is falling apart, I am eagerly searching for a hardcover, that will better withstand all my handlings and re-reads.

Here's a review of the concert.

“Tolkien and Shore together in concert”

Recently several NarniaWeb forum members—johobbit, Valiant_Lucy, sweeetlilgurlie, Wolf’s Bane, FrenchGirl, yours truly—and their families met for dinner and a show. Across the river from President Gerald R. Ford’s final resting place sits the DeVos Performance Hall, home of the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Symphony and Chorus, where conductor Ludwig Wicki played The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring to a sold-out audience.

There’s a luminous quality to music in a concert hall with proper acoustics. Newcomers to concert-going may have expected a film with live accompaniment, but it is in truth a concert accompanied by action on stage. Subtitles and evening wear dwelt side by side with film concessions including popcorn and lite beer. (This writer selected fruit chews.) Audience participation is different in a concert hall as well. The audience laughed at Merry and Pippin’s scenes, but graciously, not the belly laughs of the multiplex.

A live performance gives music the richness and texture that comes with fresh interpretation. The vocals in particular illustrated just how many of Howard Shore’s solos begin with rest notes—and how every theme other than Hobbits and Rivendell inexorably descends into minor key. This writer was mildly surprised that the performers were free to cover even the Enya songs. (Not that there was anything lacking in Enya’s original performance. Rather, this writer had first heard of Enya when the singer covered Nichelle “Uhura” Nichols in the otherwise unremarkable Star Trek V, despite the fact that Nichols had sung jazz with Duke Ellington and had recently completed a tour of operattas in Italy.)

Much of the Elven music retained its ethereal balance. The Dwarven chants in Khazad-dûm emphasized more tenor than in the film soundtrack. Harp and timpani solos were more easily distinguished. For the themes of Men, the French horn seemed mellower and more introspective. Now, the Orcs, the Orcs. This writer had invited a person who was unable to attend, and the first question asked upon return was, Did the Orcs do their anvil song? Why yes, they did. Wicki was a trombone player before he began conducting, and the GRS trombone section were not the only ones who dove into the Isengard motifs with fixture-shaking enthusiasm. The big surprise of the night was the Hobbit Springle dance. palantir-addiction. But it is hinted in Tolkien's appendices that one of the reasons he took up palantir-gazing was that he felt he needed more information about how to govern the realm. It wasn't nosiness, not even like the benign threat from Aragorn that he would look up Pippin Took at home in the palantir, which was an interesting stance from a man who refused to enter the Shire bodily. Using telepathy/technology/magic to cross the borders is okay, though? They never answered that one. But we digress.

Denethor really believed he needed that edge. When he was about Boromir's age, Denethor was studying to become Ruling Steward. Meanwhile, to strengthen the kingdom, Steward Ecthelion had opened his rolls to warriors of any race. Presumably if even a Dwarf or Hobbit had wanted to enlist, Ecthelion would have let them. One of these "aliens" was Thorongil, or Aragorn in disguise. Denethor took an instant dislike to him, and readers have always assumed that it was for the primary reason stated by Tolkien: that Denethor knew this would be his boss someday.

But Tolkien gives us a second reason that sometimes goes unnoticed: Ecthelion adored Thorongil. It didn't help that Thorongil was primarily there to study and wage war. "[Ecthelion] was aided by a great captain whom he loved above all. Thorongil it was who counseled him of the peril of Umbar ... Although great honor awaited him, [Thorongil] would not return to the white city ... There was grief and dismay in the city at his departure." It is strongly implied that the Ecthelion-Thorongil "bromance" (male bonding) took precedence over the things that Denethor needed from his father: namely, professional training and family time. So when Denethor might have questions about the tax structure or how to nurse the nation through crop-killing drought, Ecthelion seems to have been busy dealing with battles. That's necessary, of course, or there wouldn't be a nation for Denethor to inherit. But at the same time, without an administrator like Denethor to run the kingdom, there wouldn't be a kingdom for Aragorn to inherit either. The country needed both types of men, and Ecthelion got wrapped up in war business with his favorite captain. Denethor also knew from the first that Gandalf was trying to put Aragorn on the throne, which was why Denethor refused aid from both of them.

{source: The Return of the King, Appendix A, subsection "The Stewards"}

So what does Denethor do? The same thing that was done to him: Denethor dotes on Boromir and neglects Faramir, with the added implication that Denethor toughened up and Faramir should, too. Although Aragorn definitely knew that Ecthelion favored him over his own son, it's entirely possible that Aragorn was unaware that Denethor would grow up to repeat the pattern within his family. Faramir, however, was written more as a character who could adapt to the return of the king, as he seems something of the born second-in-command.

It's back! My humongous [technical term] study of What's behind "Left Behind" and random other stuff.

The Upper Room | Sponsor a child | Genealogy of Jesus | Same TOM of Toon Zone

I always loved that part about Thorongil. I think that is one of the most interesting stories.

In some lines PJ actually made him the opposite of who he was in the book: "I have never wanted that power"

I actually liked that part. To me, Aragorn was saying that he did not want that power, because he did not want to become corrupt with it, like so many of his ancestors. Specifically, Isildur. Maybe the movie played over his uncertainty more than in the books, but I think it's just fine. He knew what was in store for him and his future (or what could be rather), but he did not want to take it for the wrong reasons.

If he despairs over "taking over Gandalf's shoes", then why wouldn't he not worry about taking over an entire kingdom? Just my thoughts.

I actually liked that part. To me, Aragorn was saying that he did not want that power, because he did not want to become corrupt with it, like so many of his ancestors.

It still doesn't change the fact that this statement is so different from book Aragorn, and that's what I find hard to accept.

If he despairs over "taking over Gandalf's shoes", then why wouldn't he not worry about taking over an entire kingdom?

Good question! Because Gandalf's death was unexpected, while Aragorn becoming the King of Gondor had been ordained because of his blood-line. Elrond revealed his lineage (heir of Isildur) to him when he was old enough to understand the responsibility it entailed, and from then on he knew and fully accepted this fact, revealing the glory of this wonder every now and then, as, for example, in the Argonath passage or when he laid aside Andúril before entering Théoden's hall.

Hurrah, I wrote a short post for a change!