Anti-LotR

[Brown Jenkin]

1. It was rather obvious that Strider was there waiting for them. Logic says a group of Hobbits leaving the Shire are not going to be armed so he better bring weapons for them.

Sure, but why not arm them imediately in Bree. There was definitely enough danger in Bree. Why carry a bag of swords for so far yourself. Surely Pippen would have been courious enough to ask about them earlier. I just felt it wasn't handled that clearly. but as I said minor.

2. Arwen clearly tells Aragorn that she will be safe if she can cross the river. I believe the line from the movie was "The magic of my people will protect me." So anyone who listens carefully knows it is not Arwen defeating the Nazgul but instead Arwen callign forth a power already there in the land.

It is not the magic of her people or of the land, it is the magic of her father. I felt it was important to the story that Elrond was a badass himself and that it was HIS protection that kept them safe. Yes elves are powerfull, but there are only two who are that powerful: Elrond and Galadriel and that is because they each wear a ring of power. The power of the land of Rivendell and Lothlorien is derived from the rings, and the reason that Lothlorien will die is not because Galadriel will leave but beacuse her ring will lose its power when the one is destroyed. Gandolf has the third but it is unclear whether his magic is because of it or his heritage. It is possible to have Arwen be a strong character without this. Would it have been so bad if she had called out "Father we need your help" or something similar.

3. Does it matter what the arguements are? I have read the book multiple times and even I cannot remember everyones exact arguements beyond the fact that Gandalf did not want to go but would not clearly say why.

No it does not matter, but I suspect that I was not the only Tolkien fan who was confused by this. What was Jacksons reason for mixing this all up?

Edit: Silly quote boxes not working right

 

[KnowTheToe]

Yes but how was he to expect four hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two? [/B]

He may have had a small stash of supplies in the area. You never know when you will need a quick meal and a few extra weapons.

 

[Victim]

Yes but how was he to expect four hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two? [/B]

Maybe he had some weapons as backups for Frodo and Sam. It's not other characters restrict themselves to only one weapon each, right.

Or he expected Frodo and Sam to quickly catch on to the native halfing combat style of ranger-rogue dual wielding sneak attacks of death.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature.

I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.

I hearlily agree, but at the same time disagree. Yes Eowyn proves to be quite a kickass girl herself but this does not show until the third book. The first book is almost compleately lacking in female characters, and all are just minor love interests. The most notable one was even cut since she is with Tom Bombadill. (I miss Tom but I agree with Jackson's decision, unless you want a 5 hour movie some things need to go). Arwin doesn't even show up in the main text of the Fellowship, she is relegated to the apendix. Pulling Arwin from the apendix to the main story doesn't bother me since its not as if Jackson was just making it up, and I think it does add somewhat to the story.

Back to Eowyn though. While she turns out to be a great fighter, even in book two she is nothing more than a female love interest. She never fights, is sent packing with the women and children durring the battle of Helms Deep, and spends most of her time mooning over Aragorn. It will be interesting to see what Jackson does with her and with Arwin in the TT.

I agree that we shouldn't make LotR PC but so far I think Jackson has not crossed the line. We will see if I am wrong when TT is released.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature.

I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.

First, it has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with the female characters he presents being boring. Can you honestly say that any of those characters, as written in the narrative, bereft of the backstory available in other sources like the appendices or the Silmarillion, are interesting? I can't. Tolkien's male characters are a lot more interesting and fleshed out.

The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt is to accuse someone of being PC. You're better than that, Doc. If you've read anything I've ever posted, you know I'm not necessarily PC. So if you really want a discussion, don't continue with the insults. I respect your opinion, having read what you've posted over the time you've posted here.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

He does rule the Rangers does he not? One word off screen and the weapons could easily be supplied to him.

Yes but how was he to expect four hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two? [/B]

 

[JacktheRabbit]

It has everything to do with being PC. You want to rewrite the book because it doesnt jive with your idea of balanced gender roles.

I again point to Eowyn and ask how she is a mere showpiece.

First, it has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with the female characters he presents being boring. Can you honestly say that any of those characters, as written in the narrative, bereft of the backstory available in other sources like the appendices or the Silmarillion, are interesting? I can't. Tolkien's male characters are a lot more interesting and fleshed out.

The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt is to accuse someone of being PC. You're better than that, Doc. If you've read anything I've ever posted, you know I'm not necessarily PC. So if you really want a discussion, don't continue with the insults. I respect your opinion, having read what you've posted over the time you've posted here.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature.

I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.

Regarding Eowyn - you are taking the "pedestal" thing literally. Eowyn, like the other female characters, are cold and distant, or at least that's how Tolkien wrote them.

By the way, Tolkien isn't an ancient Greek or Roman, so LotR isn't classical literature.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It has everything to do with being PC. You want to rewrite the book because it doesnt jive with your idea of balanced gender roles.

I again point to Eowyn and ask how she is a mere showpiece.

You're putting words in my mouth. It has nothing to do with gender roles; it has to do with being interesting characters. I don't want to rewrite anything. Just because I've read the book a dozen times or more doesn't mean that I think it's flawless.

Look, I see no point in a flame war getting started. If you want to discuss this without name-calling, cool. If not, then - you're right. You win. My opinion is wrong.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Come on now, no personal fighting. I was enjoying this thread and its discussions and would hate to see it shut down over personal bickering. I think both of you make good arguements so lets keep to the point and leave the personal stuff out.