Flaming Denethor was brilliant (and the name has since been adopted by various flaming cocktail recipes ). And in death, not entirely useless; I expect he took out a couple of Uruks when he reached the bottom.

LOL! My dad makes a similar comment about him killing orcs every time we watch RotK.

Narnian_at_heart, were you joking when you said you had read LotR ONLY six times? That sounds pretty good to me!

Narnian_at_heart, were you joking when you said you had read LotR ONLY six times? That sounds pretty good to me!

No, I wasn't joking. When I watched LotR, I thought the film makers made up the whole part about the dead army because I didn't remember it from the book. Then I found that part and I was like, "Oh, it was in here." I just didn't remember it because I didn't really get that whole part.

But then, I also have a problem with jumping ahead down a page and I have to force myself to read every single sentence. Last time I read LotR, I got to a part and I was like, "Oh, so that's why XXX happened." and I had been totally lost the last time I read that part of the book.

I began my paper-cut of Turin today. Its pretty good, except the dragon helm doesn't look quite right. It sort of just looks like he has spiky hair. But otherwise its pretty good. Expect a picture in the next week or so.

RE: Flaming Denathor

When my brothers and all watched it the first time, "J" commented that in old battles with elephants (can't remember what time period he said, Roman maybe, with Hannibal?) they would light pigs on fire and send them into the elephants to spook them. I commented that hey, Denathor's on fire, and he sure is squealing!

I don't think I'm going to comment on the adaption of LotR because all I would do is gush

Haha, Narnian_at_heart, ONLY six times! But you're right, it's easy to miss things: they are very "deep" and intricate. A lot to them.

First things first:

Hobbit announcement by Friday? We will see ... *tries not to get overly anticipatory*

Also, joy of joys, I received my greatly-anticipated copy of The Music of the Lord of the Rings by Doug Adams (Howard Shore's 'shadow') in my mailbox this morning, a day before its release, woot!. What a gorgeous nearly 400-page volume. Lovely, sturdy hardcover filled with music analysis, discussion, explanations, (yet accessible to laypeople), photos, drawings by Alan Lee and John Howe, and Shore's scores galore, which I will definitely not be able to pass by without trying them on the piano.

Some photos: *hugs the beloved book tightly to her chest*

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

As our beloved hobbit would say "O great glory and splendour!"

If you are interested in ordering, see Doug's blog for further info. We first met Doug after a live LotR Symphony in Toronto in 2004. He was writing the book then, and there have been many obstacles to overcome, but I can honestly say it has been worth the wait. We're hoping to nab Doug for an interview for an issue of Silver Leaves. *crosses fingers and little furry toes*

And now to respond to a bit above:

Re Gandalfs Beard's post here: *chuckles heartily at your Flaming Denethor paragraph*

I agree there could hardly be adaptations better than what PJ accomplished, except if what bugged me was righted: those needless arcs of characters who were already fleshed out just fine in the book.

Yep, I didn't at all mind the orc-killing-contest between Legolas and Gimil ... because it's canon, but it's that silly drinking game that just seems so dumb.

narnian_at_heart, six times reading LotR is very admirable! And yep, there is so many levels in that book. Also I find that, depending what I'm going through at different stages, it speaks to me in various ways. And I'm still getting more and more out of it, even after having read it every two years for the past nearly 40 years (about the same as GB, actually).

Lady Haleth wrote
Believe it or not, there are worse adaptations than PC. (Ella Enchanted comes to mind. The movie was a completely different story. Its like they took Ella, her curse, and some other characters and dropped them in a totally different story!)

I completely agree. I didn't think PC was a super bad adaption (I loved it so much!), though of course it had flaws. They all do. And Ella Enchanted was indeed a stupid movie!! The book was so sweet, and then they totally changed it ALL!!
Anyway, I love love love LoTR, they're my favorite books. Extremely well written, great story, characters, everything. I love it!! I haven't watched the movies, but I want to so so much, I know I'll love them.

Question about The Hobbit/LOTR from a first-time reader.

I'm reading Tolkien's Hobbit/LOTR series for the first time, and I had some questions about some of the things I've read so far. (So far, I've read The Hobbit, and I am almost done with the second chapter of Fellowship of the Ring)

1. In this passage, when Frodo is asking Gandalf if Bilbo will be alright --

Of course, he possessed the ring for many years, and used it, so it might take a long while for the influence to wear off--before it was safe for him to see it again, for instance. Otherwise, he might live on for years, quite happily: just stop as he was when he parted with it.

This part confused me. I was hoping someone here could clear it up.
So, they're talking about the effect the ring had on Bilbo, and what will happen to him now that he has let the ring go. The part that's confusing me is when Gandalf says that Bilbo will "just stop as he was when he parted with it". See, to me, when Bilbo gave up the ring, he seemed like he was returning back to his normal old self -- the way he was before the ring took effect. But Gandalf said he would "stop where he was when he parted with it". But when he parted with it, the ring had affected him -- he was turning mean, suspicious, etc. Does Gandalf mean Bilbo will stay that way, because that's "where he was when he parted with it"? Or was the effects the ring had on him undone when he gave it up?

2. In Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf says that the story Bilbo put down in his diary about the journey to the mountain, finding the ring, defeating the dragon, etc. was not the true story. Does that mean when we read The Hobbit, that what we're reading isn't true? How do we know what's true and what isn't?

3. Gandalf says that the ring takes effect on the wearer immediately. But when I read The Hobbit, Bilbo still seems like Bilbo through the whole thing. He didnt change when he put it on. Am I missing something?

4. In Fellowship of the Ring, it says that, during the time The Hobbit took place, when Bilbo first got the ring, he told the others that he had "won" it, and the truth didn't come out until Gandalf questioned him, and Bilbo was told not to wear it, but he got mad and did anyway. But I didn't see any of that stuff happen when I read The Hobbit... was it left out?

5. When Bilbo starts acting odd and mean in Chapter One of Fellowship of the Ring, that's all the ring's doing, right? I was sure it was until Gandalf seemed to be blaming Bilbo and calling him a "fool" for not trusting him and giving up the ring. But how is Bilbo a fool if he's just doing that because the magic of the ring is forcing him to? If he can't help it, it's not his fault. It's the ring's fault. Right? That confused me.

6. What did Gandalf mean when he said, "...even Bilbo's story suggests the kinship. There was a great deal in the background of their minds and memories that was very similar. They understood one another remarkably well..."?
He is talking about Bilbo and Gollum. And the way he's talking makes it sound like he means that the two of them had almost the same personality. Does he just mean they were both hobbit-like? What did he mean?

7. In all the versions of The Hobbit I've seen, including the one I own, it says in a note at the beginning that some parts have been edited -- notably Chapter Five, the part where Bilbo finds the ring. Does anyone know how it was changed, why it was changed, and what it said before it was changed?

Thanks in advance for anyone who can answer the questions!

~Riella

Question about The Hobbit/LOTR from a first-time reader.

2. In Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf says that the story Bilbo put down in his diary about the journey to the mountain, finding the ring, defeating the dragon, etc. was not the true story. Does that mean when we read The Hobbit, that what we're reading isn't true? How do we know what's true and what isn't?

I believe (from my reading of the books) that Gandalf is just talking about the finding of the ring part of the book. Bilbo says that he won it in a game. He didn't want anyone to know how he really got it.

4. In Fellowship of the Ring, it says that, during the time The Hobbit took place, when Bilbo first got the ring, he told the others that he had "won" it, and the truth didn't come out until Gandalf questioned him, and Bilbo was told not to wear it, but he got mad and did anyway. But I didn't see any of that stuff happen when I read The Hobbit... was it left out?

I believe that happened later. After the Hobbit ended and before FotR started.

7. In all the versions of The Hobbit I've seen, including the one I own, it says in a note at the beginning that some parts have been edited -- notably Chapter Five, the part where Bilbo finds the ring. Does anyone know how it was changed, why it was changed, and what it said before it was changed?

There were two versions to the chapter where Bilbo finds the Ring. When JRR Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit," he didn't immediately have in mind that the Ring would be evil, so in the older version, the characters were portrayed without the power the Ring got on them (because it was nothing more than a magic ring, it didn't have any power that it would begin to gain over its wearer). Whereas in the new version, (the one in T.H. that we read nowadays), Gollum is much more attached to the Ring and does not want to let it go (because its power has taken hold on him). I think he may have even given Bilbo the Ring as a gift in the older version, (Some expert correct me if I'm wrong here? ) which certainly wouldn't correspond with LotR very well, so it had to be changed.

I'll try my hand at answering. Jo or someone more knowledgeable than I correct me if I get something wrong.

1. I think the Ring essentially functioned as a drug to Bilbo. A cocaine user can stop using the drug, but if you put a pile of it in front of them right afterward, their old habits could come flashing back. So I think Bilbo would be fine with time, but not necessarily right away.

2. Bilbo lied to the dwarves about having the Ring at first. Even when he finally admitted he had, I don't think he told the entire truth. I'm a bit rusty on this, but the story in The Hobbit is true, but it isn't necessarily the same as the story in the book Bilbo wrote.

3. Well, he lied about having the Ring right off the bat. He was already manifesting a desire to keep it a secret and keep the Ring for himself. So it was affecting him as soon as he started wearing it.

4. I think Gandalf getting the truth out of Bilbo happened between the books. There's a good 60+ years between the two books after all.

5. The Ring influenced Bilbo, but I think we're meant to understand that he was still calling the shots. To bring back the drug addiction parallel, an addict might do awful things while in the throes of their addiction, but they're still choosing to do them. Their head isn't screwed on straight, but it's still a choice. So Gandalf was right to chasten Bilbo, because he was making the decision to be an idiot.

6. Gollum was once a hobbit or something very close to one. Bilbo and Gollum came from similar cultures with similar ways of life and customs. Thus they had similar ways of thinking, even if by now Gollum was something twisted and awful.

7. I'm not entirely certain how Riddles in the Dark went in The Hobbit before the edits, but I do know that it was edited after the publication of LotR. Tolkien edited it to make it fit with LotR better.

1. I think the rest of the quote answers your question:

For he gave it up in the end of his own accord: an important point.

When Bilbo gives up the ring he really gives up the ring. He was not mean or suspicious when he did that.

2. I will answer this by quoting the prologue of LotR:

Now it is a curious fact that this is not the story as Bilbo first told it to his companions. To them his account was that Gollum had promised to give him a present, if he won the game; but when Gollum went to fetch it from his island he found the treasure was gone: a magic ring, which had been given to him long ago on his birthday. Bilbo guessed that this was the very ring he had found, and as he had won the game, it was already his by right. But being in a tight place, he said nothing about it, and made Gollum show him the way out, as a reward instead of a present. This account Bilbo set down in his memoirs, and he seems to never have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond. Evidently it still appeared in the original Red Book, as it did in several of the copies and abstracts. But many copies contain the true account (as an alternative), derived no doubt from notes by Frodo or Samwise, both of whom learned the truth...
Gandalf, however, disbelieved Bilbo's first story, as soon as he had heard it, and he continued to be very curious about the ring. Eventually he got the true tale out of Bilbo after much questioning, which for a while strained their friendship; but the wizard seemed to think the truth important. Though he did not say so to Bilbo, he also thought it important, and disturbing, to find that the good hobbit had not told the truth from the first: quite contrary to his habit. The idea of a 'present' was not mere hobbitlike invention all the same. It was suggested to Bilbo, as he confessed, by Gollum's talk that he overheard; for Gollum did, in fact, call the ring his 'birthday present' many times.

That was kind of long, but it answered questions 2 and 4.

3. Bilbo does change. He didn't tell the Dwarves what really happened. He wanted to keep the ring a secret.

5. It is not entirely the ring's doing. The wearer can resist the ring, which is key to the entire story. Gandalf tells Bilbo not to be a fool because Bilbo is letting the ring cloud his judgment and trust.

6. Gandalf meant that Smeagol's people were Hobbits (or something very similar).

7. This gets back to your second question. The way Bilbo tells his story to the Dwarves in the book is actually how Tolkien originally wrote it. When he began to write LotR, he realized that in order for the ring to be the ring the Bilbo-Gollum exchange and the way Bilbo got the ring would have to different and that Gollum would have to act differently. So he rewrote it and worked the rewriting into the story by saying that's how Bilbo wrote it.

Hope that helps!

Edit: oh, well I see several other people answered your questions while I was busy typing all that.

1. I think the Ring essentially functioned as a drug to Bilbo. A cocaine user can stop using the drug, but if you put a pile of it in front of them right afterward, their old habits could come flashing back. So I think Bilbo would be fine with time, but not necessarily right away.

So that means after he was seperated from the ring, there were no permanent side effects? After all, with the drug example, there are people who were addicted, then quit, but still had certain problems because the drugs had done damage. Would the ring cause permanent damage like that, or did he go back to being perfectly fine?

the story in The Hobbit is true, but it isn't necessarily the same as the story in the book Bilbo wrote.

Wait, isn't the story in the book Bilbo wrote the same story that we read when we read the hobbit? I read somewhere that it was, and that he was also the writer of The Silmarillion. Wouldn't that mean they were the same thing?

Also, was the part about the ring being a gift the only thing he lied about in the story, or were there other things?

3. Well, he lied about having the Ring right off the bat. He was already manifesting a desire to keep it a secret and keep the Ring for himself. So it was affecting him as soon as he started wearing it.

But was that one lie he told the only example in The Hobbitof the ring having an effect on him? Or were there other examples as well?

Oh, and thanks for all the great answers, guys!

~Riella

Would the ring cause permanent damage like that, or did he go back to being perfectly fine?

The ring did not cause permanent damage, but it did cause damage. Just keep reading and I think the ring's effect on Bilbo will become clearer.

Wait, isn't the story in the book Bilbo wrote the same story that we read when we read the hobbit? I read somewhere that it was, and that he was also the writer of The Silmarillion. Wouldn't that mean they were the same thing?

Okay, here's a bit of a history lesson: The Hobbit, LotR, and the Sil are all part of one book called the Red Book in LotR. Bilbo wrote TH and bits of LotR and he translated the Sil. Frodo and Sam wrote the parts of LotR that Bilbo did not. When Bilbo wrote TH, he wrote in the book what he told the Dwarves--that Gollum had promised him a present and since Bilbo already had the intended present he made Gollum show him the way out. This version was how Tolkien originally wrote it and it appears in the earliest additions. Bilbo never changed what he wrote, but Frodo and/or Sam did. What Frodo and/or Sam wrote is what we read today.

Does that make sense?

Wow, fun discussion! I don't have time right now to weigh in. Besides the others are very competent with their answers and I am no pro—only a very passionate Tolkien/Lewis gal. In fact, the more I read Tolkien, the more I realize how much more there is to learn/know.

Anywho, I just wanted to mention that Mark Sommer, who is a member here, posted a review of The Music of the Lord of the Rings on HollywoodJesus. The book, according to Doug Adams' blog, is selling like hotcakes. Huzzah! And the critics are loving it!