Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 1307763" data-attributes="member: 4049">Although I'm not certain to whom this was directed, I'll respond to it.I don't think reading poetry/songs regularly or not has anything to do with a reader's ultimate appreciation of a text.  I think it's possible to enjoy a novel, play, or any other literary work, understand its depth (or lack thereof), appreciate its themes, and come away having grasped the author's intent without necessarily "getting into" the poetry and other "side-line" material.  I do think that the reader misses out in the full experience as most writers insert poetry/verse with the purpose of backing up the text's intent through allegory, metaphor, symbolism, etc., but I don't think they miss out on the key elements in most cases.As for multiple endings...  Well, this generation (is this the N generation?  I'm X, so I'm already old I suppose) is used to multiple ends/false endings.  I don't think most people have an issue with this (unless they've been watching three 3-hour plus movies).      Tom Bombadil was an interesting element that, in the grand scheme of the overall story, was ultimately superfluous.  He really served very little direct/important role in the story.  We never see him or his wife again after their brief appearance and we never really get to know what the heck he is.  Hell, there continues to be a lot of debate on his nature precisely because he's so nebulous.  Frankly, I don't understand all the fuss over his character since he's not an important player in the story and, as far as I'm concerned, only confuses most readers because he so clearly exists outsid of everything else that progresses in the trilogy.  Even if one reads The Silmarillion, I don't think much, if anything, is clarified about his nature and the role he plays.  I'm glad he was excised from the movie adaptation.I will say that I have read a cool article that posits that Bombadil's actually Aule in disguise...It's been a while since I read FoTR, but I got the impression that Gandalf wasn't worried (and, as a result, Frodo wasn't worried) because he thought he had time.  He wasn't certain about the Sorcerer being Sauron and didn't know where Gollum was.  He didn't see the point in another Baggins up and leaving suddenly, which would have certainly drawn suspicion... something Gandalf didn't want.  If I'm on point, I don't see this as a flaw in the storytelling.Chalk it up to divine providence.  Or to coincidence.  Shakespeare is full of coincidence.  Although I see your point, I don't think it's fair to single Tolkien out with these sorts of "silly plot devices."Besides, mythology is full of little tricksters lucking out with these sorts of things.  Nothing new here.I disagree.  I think that plot and character remain as important in fantasy as most other novel-dependant genres, but that setting takes on an increased role, particularly for fantastic worlds, environs, cultures, etc.  This is where a lot of writers stumble.  Many take so much time and put so much effort in creating a world that they lose their characters and plots (and, more importantly, in my mind, the human condition) in their tales.Then there are those who make an equally heinous mistake: those who don't flesh out their worlds enough on the front end, thereby never effectively allowing more sophisticated readers to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the story.  Terry Goodkind is an excellent example of this as he's apparently createed stuff for his world as he's written more books... and most of it isn't particularly original.I think most writers who fail in the latter error, poor world design, are also lousy character writers.</blockquote>

Verification