[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[kengar]

Now, I agree that RotK does have an epilogue. A really, really long one. But, Sam & Frodo on the rock and being rescued to rejoin their companions in Rivendell is still denouement. The climax of the story has been reached, but our heroes lay dying... and the plot finally unravels to send them home.

< nitpick> They rejoin their companions in Gondor, not Rivendell < /nitpick>

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

 

[Umbran]

A story ends when the plot is resolved. That a story must reach a "climax" is formula, not fact. That the narrative may continue beyond the story--outside of it--does not mean the story is brought with it. The end is the end.

Ah, but most novel-sized works have more than a single plot that needs resolving. Some plots may seem more important than others to you, but that doesn't mean they stop when what you consider the major plot is resolved. Thus, the narrative can continue on with plots you don't consider important - one man's epilogue may be another's plot resolution.

 

[Merlion]

Perhaps there is confusion about plot and story--and narration

I think there is some confusion about who made you supreme god of literary terms, and which parts of each and every story fit each one

 

[Storm Raven]

I think there is some confusion about who made you supreme god of literary terms, and which parts of each and every story fit each one

I think one problem is that people are looking to make the appearance of the eagles into something other than it is in RotK. Gandalf is friends with the lord of the eagles (Gwaihir, and his brother Landroval), it is not surprising that they come to his aid in the end. Further, eagles are the special messengers of Manwe, the most powerful of the remaining Valar, hence, their appearance in some ways is a deus ex machina, albeit a completely intentional and logical one.

The eagles are partially deus ex machina, and partially explainable by old personal alliances. Does there need to be more agonizing over this very minor plot point than that? Tolkien could, for example, have easily had the lava flows miss the area where Sam and Frodo end up and have them walk to safety. In the end, the eagles have limited neccessary impact on the plot.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Umm, you do realize that PJ's end sequence was a heavily truncated version of the end sequence Tolkien wrote, don't you?

Storm Raven - no, he doesn't. He said at the start of the message that he hasn't read the books. That's why he doesn't know how to spell Nazgûl. The movies only refer to the wraiths without their Fell Beasts as Nazgûl once, from memory - in FotR, when the hobbits first meet Strider. So it's not unfair for him to see Gondorians running away from Fell Beasts yelling "Nazgûl!", and associate the word with the big black dragonny things.

Reread his post with the understanding that he hans't read the books.

-Hyp.

 

[Merlion]

Further, eagles are the special messengers of Manwe, the most powerful of the remaining Valar, hence, their appearance in some ways is a deus ex machina, albeit a completely intentional and logical one.

Thats exactly what I was saying to. And as I mentioned earlier, although its never said for sure, I believe the eagles of the mountains might be Maiar.

 

[kengar]

Thats exactly what I was saying to. And as I mentioned earlier, although its never said for sure, I believe the eagles of the mountains might be Maiar.

I have heard that somewhere as well; the Gwahir was as much a divine spirit incarnate as Gandalf, abeit with a different purpose. I don't have a quote to back that up however.

 

[reapersaurus]

First off, those were my personal feelings about the MOVIE.
It's been a long time since I read the books, so don't read my points as anything but a critique of the movie.

If you want to discuss the books (and my belief that they are VERY flawed), we would have to start a seperate thread, and I'd have to read the books again (no time).

About the orcs killing EVERYONE off (except 4), yes - it's stupid and doesn't work in the book as well if that's the way it exactly goes down. Does Sam just waltz right into the fortress, or does he use the Ring in the book?

About the missed line re: Eowyn-
I think we should first decide whether to couch the discussion in the context of the movies, or the books.
Because unless I'm mistaken, just about everything you responded was in the context of the books, NOT the movie.
As I saw it, your interpretation is not correct with regards to Eowyn from what's presented in the movie.

The movies were quite clear about heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good.
The movies were also clear that Eowyn yearned for a chance to prove herself on the battlefield and earn renown. They never showed what you described that I saw. They even showed her "Father" (I know he isn't her direct father, but I used "Father/Daughter" for ease of typing) repeatedly being concerned over his legacy, playing the hero role, Glory, etc.

I assume that means you didn't buy this plot turn when it happened in the books either?

Except it would have completely voided the character development of Eowyn, who gives up the quest for glory and renown to accept responsibility and duty instead. She starts as a glory seeking adolescent and ends up as an adult. Changing the end result of her character development to adolescent wish fulfillment would destroy the power of her story arc.

I assume you watched the movies closely, so I'm confused how your reading of Eowyn's character can be so different from mine.

In the movies I saw, she DIDN'T accept her duty - she reluctantly didn't fulfill her father's wishes of her being a Courtier/Political Leader and instead "quested for glory and renown" - not just for renown's sake, but because she firmly believed that to save what she loved, and defend herself, she had to go to war.
This was made quite clear in TTT with her line of (clumsily paraphrased) "Long ago women of the Rohan learned that not knowing how to use a sword won't stop you from dying on one."

Further, she didn't HAVE to give up her desire for renown in the movie - she GOT IT.
That's the purpose for my suggested line. To echo the quite-clear subplot (to me) in memorable words directly from her "Father" as he's dying, in the middle of the battlefield. It was set up for the line, they just missed it.

And so did you.

The movies are NOT the books, guys.
And thank goodness for that.

 

[Merlion]

Its mostly just implied. It states they work for Manwe (and that all non evil avians do). but they are the only talking animals in LOTR...and they do always seem to show up when needed. And seem to be easily contactable by powerful people (Galadriel sends Gwahir to search for Gandalf when she learns of his fall, since she knows what he is and that he will be back)

 

[Vocenoctum]

The movies were quite clear about heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good.
The movies were also clear that Eowyn yearned for a chance to prove herself on the battlefield and earn renown

Another person commented to me recently about Eowyn (from the movies) "I found it hard to be sympathetic to her character. They're drafting little kids into the army, and she's out for personal glory in the battles."