Hey guys 😊 there are a lot of insightful comments going on here which is lovely~ but I just wanted to gently mention: this is just my honest reaction and response to reading lotr for the first time. I mentioned that I've researched Tolkien's influence and I have memories of watching the films in childhood, but other than that, I don't know the story. I'm SURE I've gotten plenty of things wrong and, because this is just my honest experience of reading the book: no, I didn't feel the need to google every single plot point before talking about it. I love how passionate you guys are about Tolkien, but please keep that in mind. Take care everyone and happy holidays 💛💛
I was so saddened that Peter Jackson omitted my favorite character as a child, Tom Bombadil. His songs were fascinating a d inspired me to write lyric poetry as a teen in the early 90s. I especially was looking forward to his rescuing Frodo from Old Man Willow. And his yellow boots would have stood out on screen. I came to better understand pacing and narrative flow and recognize Mr. Jackson did a wonderful job adapting these works to film, but miss Glorfindel.
Hi Christy, I hope you had a pleasant Christmas :) i was given a boxed paper-back version of the LOTR trilogy about 30 years ago which I still own today, but i like the appearance of the hard-cover version you own.. your arms must be buff from holding it for over a week :D
Ohhh yesterday my husband and I finished the three extended version movies. It's a tradition. We always watch them at this time of the year. I love the book and the movies.
My sister and I are just getting through the extended versions on HBO Max since we always just watched the theatrical release/director’s cut. We are loving the longer versions 💖
My friend and I have done this a few time (not during Christmas though). But we are not in the same country atm but the extended versions are the only ones which should exist
Tolkien was a master worldbuilder. The Lothlorien chaptera made me want to live there. Other fantasy worlds feel shallow in comparison. Sam is definitely a fan favourite. Faramir is also such a great character. This video made my day thank you and you are awesome
I would not call other fantasy worlds "shallow". That is a terrible insult if you're blinded by your own faboyism. Each fantasy world that was crafted has its unique feel and possibly dedication to its construction.
@@mercianthane2503 I don't think its an insult. Tolkien spent decades building out the world. There is a lot of depth in LotR and much more in other books, such as the Silmarillion. While there is definitely value in other fantasy worlds, very few have such a fleshed out and comprehensive wider world.
@@randyward2766 He was a hardcore fantasy worldbuilder, sure. Still, it is way more important to have a well told story, with fantastic characters, and then you can have the rest. You might have created 1000 fictional languages for your story; yet if you fail telling a good story, none of that matters. It's meaningless.
Oh dear, the comments are a lot. So, as others have pointed out, the eagles couldn't carry the ring or someone with the ring because the enemy had eyes everywhere and would have attacked. Also, the ring would have corrupted the eagles and that's never a good thing. One of the reasons why Frodo is the only one who could take the ring was because Hobbits as a whole are really hard to corrupt, the ring even tried it on Sam and it didn't take because he's just not built for greed and power. I too am not a fan of Tom Bombadil, his chapter drags on the story and he's a really annoying character. Now Eowyn, on first reading you think she gets a crap ending and this is where a rushed reading of the books is bad. She went looking for glory and renown in battle and discovered that war is none of that. It's death, terror and losing those you care for. She lost her uncle and was at death's door herself. As she recovers and becomes close to Faramir (also a fellow soldier who has seen battle and death) she see's that there's more to life than seeking glory and renown. That healing and loving is just as important and brings it's own renown, Eowyn chose to live and love. That's an amazing ending for her. Also, her brother lives, he becomes king of Rohan.
So yeah, the POV thing. I think it works amazing in LOTR, because Book 3 and 5 give you NO idea what’s going on with Frodo and the Ring. It gave me that feeling like I was Aragorn, not truly knowing if Frodo is even alive, but having hope, and still charging the Black Gate anyway.
I have the same edition of Lord of the Rings, isn't it so beautiful? I'm so glad you read it, I did it last year and it was such an amazing experience. I think Eowyn actually did have a satisfying ending - she got to fight and played a significant part in saving Middle Earth, and she ended up marrying Faramir who fit with her more than the idea of Aragorn that she fell in love with. Honestly, Faramir is one of my favourite character in the books. They deserve each other.
I love Faramir. I wish we had a little more focus on them growing their relationship, but I do agree that they fit very well. I am still a little salty about movie Faramir (and Eowyn for that matter 😂)
@@goosewithagibus It's the edition illustrated by Alan Lee. It was first published in a single volume in 1968, and my particular edition was published in 1991 by BCA. I bought it second-hand and I'm so happy with it! I will say the reading experience is pretty difficult with this edition, because it's quite a heavy thick book. But it's really beautiful!
@@xJillie As a huge Tolkien LOTR fan growing up, I was super excited for the movies and wanted to love them too. First one was great (despite lack of Tom and Agent Smith Elrond), but then went downhill from there. The way they destroyed Faramir's character was kind of the last straw. And the overly dramatic and overly repeated use of slow motion, especially towards the end is just poor movie making in my opinion, and never fails to distract me out of the moment
I love Faramir. And I love that in their relationship he’s the tender romantic one (bringing his mother’s cloak to wrap around her as she stood on the city wall) and she’s the fierce one. And I love that the two of them who struggled so much with despair and with inadequate fathers/father figure are able to find each other and find healing together. It’s a beautiful ending for someone who wanted to join the battle at the Black Gate for the explicit purpose of being killed.
The enemy had fell beasts and other flying horrors that stopped the eagles from flyings the ring in. Also, the reason they didn't fly the dwarves further in the Hobbit is because they didn't want to get shot by arrows. Mordor certainly had more bow and arrows than the country folk there. Also, the eagles didn't move in until after it was safe enough.
Also, the Eagles are agents of the Valar Manwë, and at this point he's pretty fed up with all the goings on in Middle Earth, where the Elves and Men just keep screwing everything up. They've had three previous opportunities to deal with Sauron, and failed every time because of their stupidity and greed. At this point the Valar are being very much hands off. They've come in to clean up messes in Middle Earth repeated before this point, and every time the Elves and Men just screw things up again, so now the Valar are pretty much saying "This is your mess! You clean it up!"
And the Eagles were not present at the Council of Elrond where the decision of what to do with the Ring and how to do it was made. They could not have made a plan involving the Eagles if the Eagles were not there to agree to it. They were sentient beasts not beasts of burden people could use whenever they liked.
The eagles are the agents of Manwe (chief of the Valar, who are basically gods) and represent divine intervention. However, they decided not to use eagles to help since they already sent the wizards (including Gandalf) to help defeat Sauron. More subtle that way and gives the people of Middle Earth a chance to take responsibility. It's not a very satisfying reason, but it was probably the reason in the author's mind. The reason given above in OP about flying monster defenders was mentioned by the film writers (I think Fran Walsh) on the DVD commentary track.
Please don't call them "fell beasts". It's a description, not a name - they were beasts, and they were "fell" (deadly). You could equally describe lions, tigers (and wargs) as "fell beasts".
Here’s why they didn’t use eagles. In a couple words, “Ring Wraiths”, but here’s a simple analogy. Imagine for a moment you’re tasked with killing some 300 foot tall nigh invincible monster. It breaths fire. And it’s only weakness is stabbing it in the back of its throat with a tiny dagger. What would you rather do: A) wait until it’s sleeping to carefully make your move B) YOLO and rush it in broad daylight and full vision Everyone who says they should’ve rode the eagles is basically saying strategy B is a good idea.
The Scene with Sam saying: "one more step and it's the farthest from home I've ever been" does happen just not in the same way. It's during chapter five: a conspiracy unmasked when on the ferry crossing the Brandywine river. All the other Hobbits are looking forward to the other side of the river, whist Sam looks back. Seeing the crossing of the river as the passing of his life as he has known it.
Eowyn wanted to be a warrior but it's something which is not truly for her when she gets the chance. She wants glory and has feelings for Aragorn believing that together she will get great glory and become well-known, instead Aragorn rejects her feelings and this sends Eowyn into a death wish- she wants to die in battle as she wants nothing else in life. By chance she finishes off the witch king of Angmar (the black captain, the leader of the Nazgul) after Merry stabs him with a blade which has a deadly curse against wraiths such as the Nazgul- so thank God Frodo and his friends stumbled into Tom Bombadil, took the wrong way by going to the Barrow-Downs and then were rescued by Tom and Tom then encouraged Merry to keep that enchanted sword! Eowyn suffers from the "black breath" the worst as her heart is full of despair and bitterness, she is barely revived by Aragorn and when she awakens she feels purposeless and takes no joy in victory. It is only when Faramir says that Eowyn can do something else- be more than a maiden or a warrior, that Eowyn's heart lightens and she acknowledges her love for Faramir. The two have seen much tragedy, death and destruction and both wish to build and don't place the glory of the warrior above all else. Faramir becomes a prince and is given the east Gondor land of Ithilean to rebuild it- so Faramir and Eowyn go to Ithilean to build a new a deserted land. Eowyn and Faramir represent the future for Middle Earth and perhaps a change for the coming 4th Age. Lastly, Eowyn is partly Gondorian which may explain why she ends up permanently living in Gondor. In later years Tolkien began rewriting some characters and for some of the female characters he greatly increased their significance: for instance Galadriel was to be considered the greatest of all the Noldor Elves save for Feanor, and Melian (the mother of Luthien and Luthien whose line extends all the way to Aragorn!) was to be the head of the wizard order- not Saruman. I'm not sure what Tolkien's views on feminism were but he was clearly becoming more interested in the female characters he wrote.
That whole Old Forest episode is to me the most mysterious and haunting part of the story. I also believe it is crucial to the story as its hallucinogenic quality creates the necessary level of creative imagination in the mind of the reader that establishes the Middle-Earth experience as mythical rather than just imaginary adventure.
When it comes to the Eagles, I think everyone is missing the fact that , as the servants of Manwe, they aren’t supposed to be involved in the affairs of middle earth. Remember. Since everyone rejected the rule of the Ainur, they are all on there own in dealing with Sauron, manwe was merciful enough to send the istari. This also goes to why Gandalf restrained himself from acts of wizardry outside of basic or dire need.
When Tolkien says he hates allegory he means what might be called a “closed”allegory where the author has intended a singular meaning for an element of their story. He isn’t opposed to readers finding their own meanings in the work-for him that’s essential to anyone enjoying a work of fiction. He preferred “open” symbols where readers have the freedom to see whatever is meaningful to them in a work. That’s why he refused to explain to people what the Ring symbolizes.
Yes, he objected to most allegory as it was usually done badly. He much preferred "applicability". I got in many an argument with my English teachers in high school who insisted Lord of the Rings was allegorical. One was so stubborn they insisted he had inserted allegories and was just denying it in his letters.
Too bad because the Bible is Allegorical and must translated @ Genesis 32:30 Jacob meets God face to face names the placed. Toluene would be shocked to learn the truth about the Catholics and about OUR origins @ Mauro Biglino & The 5Th Kind channels. & @ Adam 1414 The Lie the Vatican Told
Everyone forgets the flying wyrms that where there even before the ring wraiths rode them into battle. Not until the ring was destroyed and Sauron's hold over the wyrms faltered was it possible to send the eagles into Mordor. If the Great Eagles had appeared in the sky over Mordor before this, his great eye would be upon them and they would have been set on by the flying wyrms. That is a battle that wouldn't have likely given Frodo the chance to get the ring to Mount Doom. Distraction was key. The battle at the gates of Mordor was necessary. Sauron believed that the ring would be there with the men of Gondor. He was wrong thanks to the efforts of two brave little hobbits. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. Not really a plot hole.
Not to mention, well... archers. Also Sauron, if he got an inkling of what was happening, could have mustered his army to defend Mount Doom specifically, preventing landings and making sure that the Nazgul were on the scene to intercept the Ring. It really isn't as simple or straightforward a plan as it sounds like when you ask the question and then don't consider how it would actually go down if they did it.
Regarding Eowyn, she did fight in the battle of Minas Tirith as Dernhelm, and she still has her brother Eomer. She ends up marrying Faramir, Boromir's brother, and they're actually a really good match.
To add to this, she and Merry together slew the Witch King of Angmar, the Lord of the Nazguls. That is quite a feat, even shared between them. Aside for Gandalf who defeated the balrog can any other lay claim to such an individual victory? If you include the Hobbit, you can add Bard's slaying of Smaug, but other than that....
HANG ON! Eowyn rides to war, takes part in the charge at the Pelenor fields, Kills the Witch King of Angmar in single combat, though is badly wounded. She the meets someone who loves her back (unlike Aragorn), and her brother is on the throne of Rohan. How is that a disappointing ending for her? I never saw the eagles as a plot hole. They fly to mordor after Sauron is destroyed. At that point Gandalf could've openly walked to Mt Doom on his own and rescued them, except he'd be too slow. If everyone else had just marched into Mordor after the ring was destroyed, would people say "Oh well they should've marched to Mt Doom in the first place?"
I think you said that Eowyn did do any fighting. But what? She fought the most dangerous enemy in Middle-earth, the Witch-king, and killed him (Merry helped, but she actually killed him). That was the actual turning point of the battle and without that who knows how long they would have lasted before being overrun. And who knows if even Gandalf would have survived if the Witch-king had not been taken out.
I mean some parts of the battle weren't described at length. Obviously Eowin fought in the battle, but the part where she fights the Witch King is the primary feat that was described. So it's one of those things where we know she's there, we know she's fighting, but we don't have it described directly. I also kind of forgot the death of Boromir was fairly unceremonious as well. That's where the movies had to show us these moments, whereas the books kind of get away with just referencing it.
From what I understand, there’s a few reasons out there of why Gandalf didn’t use the eagles but the one I’ve always liked is that Gandalf didn’t want to hand over that much power to the eagles who are practically God like creatures. It’s the same reason he himself didn’t take it and why Galadriel didn’t either. Whether that’s right or wrong I have no idea.
I believe the whole idea was only unassuming Hobbits could carry the ring right under the enemies nose without being noticed. Flying giant Eagles certainly would have been very noticeable. At least that was always my take.
Regarding Shelob and He-lob, probably. Allow me to refer you to Bilbo's line in The Hobbit where he says "Lazy lob and crazy cob are weaving webs to wind me". I believe both lob and cob are dialectal English words to refer to spiders (cf. cobwebs).
Yaay this vlog gave me such joy! I find it so interesting that you considered writing a thesis on LOTR despite not having read it. It's clearly one of those books that everyone seems to absorb via a kind of cultural osmosis. There was loads of great fantasy before Tolkien as well, and sometimes I'm a bit upset that it gets forgotten that Tolkienesque High Fantasy is just one small corner of a very expansive genre, but it's obvious why he's had the influence he's had. I hope you have a lovely Christmas!
The passing of Boromir is rather understated in the original text... which is why I am so glad it was handled with more nuance and detail in the movie.
I understand that many readers aren’t too enamoured with the Bombadil chapters but I personally love them. However, I also understand why they weren’t included in the movies.
The eagles are not mere animals or pets that can be commanded. They are intelligent creations and servants of the very gods of Middle Earth, just as Gandalf is. This is why Gandalf always asks them for help and never commands them. They are basically peers of Gandalf, on the same level as him, but with their own divine tasks and directives. The eagles are also not so physically powerful that they could bear riders across the world, even though they are large enough to carry people short distances. If Sauron had spotted the eagles carrying his ring then could have sent his flying Nazgul after them. The trek the fellowship takes is based on secrecy and misdirection, which is the reason for all the warfare. Countless people were sacrificing their lives just to distract Sauron. And finally, it might be that the eagles would never have agreed to physically bear the ring on their persons, just as Gandalf refused to carry it himself, as it was that seductive.
Yes, it is an easy takeaway to think of the Eagles as simple mounts with some basic ability to communicate and think if one has only read the trilogy. On a random note, I think one area that the movies didn't portray well was the serious danger Gwaihir (and Meneldor and Landroval) were in when they agreed to Gandalf's request to recover Frodo.
@@Telthar I wish they had shown the eagles as intelligent in the movies. Even if they didn't make them speak, they could have had Gandalf speak to them and then had him acknowledge their answer to his question. Just something to make viewers aware they are intelligent and capable of conversation.
On a reread of the series I came upon a part I had not noticed before. When Theoden was going off to war the people picked Eowyn to be their leader until/if he didn't return. It is easy to skip over since she instead puts on armor and hides among the soldiers but I found it interesting.
The change from "cannot pass" to "shall not pass" is great, because it puts the ownership of the line with Gandalf. You cannot implies that the Balrog is incapable of passing, but changing it to shall not implies that Gandalf is so much more powerful than the Balrog, that HE will not let him pass
If Tolkien wrote "cannot", being a linguistic expert, you can bet there was a good reason. I think he implied that Gandalf could not allow the Balrog to pass and also that it couldn't, if Gandalf was prepared to sacrifice himself. "Shall not" implies Gandalf had decided not to let it pass. (Pretty sure that the phrase, in that form, comes from the Spanish Civil War).
In regards to the eagles there’s two reasons it’s not a plot hole. First, if they had tried to fly the fellowship to Mordor, they could have been easily stopped by Sauron. He both can command animals like fell beasts, and conjure storms. Also, it is very important to note that eagles are sentient beings in this universe. They would be at just a big a risk of being corrupted as Boromir was. The same reason Frodo couldn’t stay with the fellowship would apply to the flying with an eagle. Brings of great power pose the greater risk of failing.
I'd have to disagree that Tolkien was a compulsive world-builder. It's often said that he wrote backstory for decades before he got down to the story and wrote _The Lord of the Rings,_ but that is misleading. Those decades were spent writing the stories he wanted to write, but the publishers couldn't be convinced that they would sell. They became backstory only in retrospect.
I love how you described Frodo as a tragic character and how you compared him to Bilbo. Interesting insight! Arwen is mentioned more in the appendices than the book, and I like that the movie adaptation gave her a stronger role. In case you’re interested, I have a wonderful Lord of the Rings discussion on my channel with Medievalist, Philip Chase, who has a brilliant channel dedicated to critical examination of fantasy. Thank you for another wonderful vlog!
Very nice video, but I'd like to throw my two cents in on a few of your qualms that I haven't seen addressed: "Does he ever actually kill characters?" I would argue that he kills the characters that are necessary. Tolkien also was a firm advocate for what he called "eucatastrophe" in his Endings (meaning the opposite of catastrophe). Essentially, the end of a story should be entirely happy and complete, and all of the characters should receive what they deserve (Hence why it takes so long to wrap up Rotk). So, while some characters do die, using main character death in order to encourage development would keep it from being a full eucatastrophic, escapist conclusion. "It's a disappointing end for Eowyn" I disagree with this take. She was able to fight, first when she was chosen by her people to rule when Theoden had to leave for Helms Deep. Then, in the battle of Pelennor fields, she snuck her way onto the battlefield and was the last one standing in the fight with the Witch King, arguably one of the fiercest opponents in the 3rd age. With the help of the Hobbit she snuck into battle, she killed the Witch King, earning her a permanent place as a maiden warrior in the legendarium. Because of her, Theoden died with dignity. Due to the trauma she sustained, she was unable to continue to fight, but she met Faramir and they were able to find healing of their bodies and minds together. She became the Lady of Faramir's lands, no small position, and although she gave up fighting to he one a healer, I believe that this is her way of owning her trauma, and processing it into a healthier, more sustainable outlet. Sure, she doesn't get Aragorn in the end, but she is also a twenty four year old woman, crushing on a man who is nearly 90 years old. She is able to find a much better match in Faramir. It may not be what she initially wanted but I think her story is one of realizing that what you want may not be what you will always want, and it's alright to adjust your dreams as you grow and change. "Sam doesn't get nearly enough recognition" A lot of people have mentioned in comments that the Fandom does recognize Sam as the hero, but I totally get why reading it would make you feel that he didn't get what he deserved. In the context of the story, Sam certainly isn't recognized as the hero, but that's what makes him so admirable. In his role as the servant, he is completely humble and does not seek the limelight, even if he is the strongest character in the story. Tbh, I think if he saw the amount of love he gets on the internet now, he would be profoundly uncomfortable with it, so perhaps it's best that he can remain a humble servant in the story, but the hero of our hearts. Overall, lovely video though! Gorgeous cinematography and some beautiful sentiments.. Hopefully this first dip into LotR will keep you coming back for more, it really is one of those timeless tales where you can always come back and immerse yourself and learn more. Thanks for sharing!
Tolkien pioneered the concept of a secondary world in contemporary fiction. Secondary worlds existed before Tolkien, but they were mostly considered fairytales, myths, or pulp fiction. Any modern adult story taking place in an alternate world owes its thanks to Tolkien.
Okay, the thing is, the whole purpose of the fellowship was so that theycould go to destroy the ring in secret. If you haven't noticed, there was a huge eye on the tower. The eagles would've been dead the minute they got spotted, which would be instantly. They tried so many things to stay hidden. The eagles only came after the tower was destroyed. Also they are not regular eagles, they don't really respond to every call as far as I know. (They only answer Gandalf's and that is not everytime either.) But we need more qualified fans to explain the other aspects of it. But you're not the first one to think that that's a plothole and you can actually search to see that it is in fact, not a plothole.
I think one of the main reasons Frodo suffered more than Bilbo was not just the ring. He was stabbed by a ring wraith with the morgul knife. Which would have eventually turned him into a ring wraith himself if not for Glorfindel in the books. Arwen played this part in the movies. This injury is also part of the reason he departs to the undying lands. I also believe the ring fought to not be destroyed the closer they got to Mordor the heavier the burden of the ring became which is why Sam had to help him so much. Just a few observations of why Frodo was so much more affected than Bilbo.
another word on the eaglels, as well as the other races in LOTR. these days, fantasy tends to view races of people quantitatively, as in a series of abilities, subject to deductive logic. one hundred dwarves on a mountain would beat 150 elves due to....etc. a very important element of lotr races, and tolkien's view of them, is "what are their natures?" for example, magic (an ability) is rarely referenced. elves dont have the magic ability to walk on snow, that is what they tend to do. they are not a species defined by magic and bowmanship, rather a people defined by memory, grace, and sadness. the reason we don't see dwarf and elf armies in lotr is not just because they are fighting their own battles, but because they are all fading as peoples as we evolve into a world of humanity and the mundane. the dwarves hide deeper in their mountains, the ents become tree-ish, and the elves despair and return to valinor to steep for the rest of their lives in sad remembrance. the eagles are not animals, but demigods, representative of the god of the wind in middle earth. they have watched scores of great battles, fom morgoth to the wars or mortals and elves, and sauron. their leige lord has drawn away from middle earth and the grace of the world is fading to the time of men. i've just assumed they really just stay out of it until their drawn in by the movement of destiny. they come when it's their time to come. also remember that all the happenings in middle earth are a song and story sung by god (eru illuvatar). the story is the key. sam is more important than the eagles, elrond, galadriel, even gandalf. not because of power or even strength, but because he is expressive of such an important theme in this sung story: earnest, selfless faith. more powerful than flight. and that's why the eagles didnt bring the ring to mt doom. because that's not how the story goes.
Enjoyed this presentation! One aspect of LotR that struck me on my most recent reading is the contrasting ways that characters respond to the threat of impending doom. There is something haunting, but also understandable, about the madness of Denethor. Some pages later, Gandalf confesses to Pippin, "The truth is, there was never very much hope." (Not sure if my memory is perfect here, but that is what I recall.) Gandalf didn't need a positive prognosis to act.
I personally love the long descriptive passages but to each their own. I’ve immersed myself in this world several times over the years, will likely do so several more times before my demise, and am always rather sad when it comes to an end. I always end up continuing on to The Silmarillion but that book is rather different in nature and not everyone’s cup of tea.
Words have to be changed sometimes to fit a movie script. Remember as they shot the film every there was new updates to the script. They did a really stellar job keeping to the book and the Balkshi animated version.
I don’t know if it’s cannon or just a theory, but I read somewhere that the Ring corrupts anyone who holds it and can reduce them into a shell of a creature, like how it turned Sméagol into Gollum. There’s a fanfic where it turned dragons from free-flying creatures into treasure-hoarders, or slaves to Sauron. And it’s implied that the more powerful you are, the more terrible the effects of that corruption are, which is why Gandalf and Galadriel didn’t dare touch it. So it’s possible the Ring would’ve turned the eagles into lesser beings, hence why they weren’t used, and Tolkien just never explained it. But I think this is just a theory, so take from that what you will.
"I am now officially finished reading the book...." Well, no, you have hundreds of pages left. That they're Appendices doesn't make them somehow not there, part of the book. If you want more story, there are 29 or so additional books of history, etc.,, but the LORD OF THE RINGS are these three books. All of them. If you want to finish reading the original books, you need to read up to the end, not just the end of the narrative. Or you could legitimately say you've "finished the original story." That's reasonable. But quite obviously you haven't finished the *book*. The entire book doesn't exist to have the last couple of hundred pages ignored, though that's obviously a choice any reader can make.
Including the very important end of Sam's story - if you have skipped the appendices, I suggest you go back and read them. One advantage of the movies is that you have heard the pronounciation of most of the names, and are unlikely to be upset upon discovering in the relevant appendix that you've been mispronouncing any number of names...
Great stuff. A few notes, if you're interested. 1. Tolkien acknowledges that Sam is the real hero of the narrative in several of his correspondences. Of course, Frodo was meant to carry the Ring, but it was Sam that was needed to get Frodo to Mount Doom. 2. Arwen is a late addition to the story (and, as others have mentioned, most of their story is in Appendix A). To dip into opinion a bit, I'm confident that the original intention was for Éowyn and Aragorn to marry, but then Tolkien decided that Aragorn needed a 'higher status' wife. You can see the same sort of revisionism in the changing history of Galadriel (except in that case he kept changing their history but not their names). However (and this is typical of his revision process) he left all of the Éowyn foreshadowing in, so it reads now like the narrative is cobbled together from competing traditions, e.g. one oral version says he married Éowyn, one version says he married Arwen and the scribe just combined both versions as much as possible. (See the other comments about the framing story of this being a found narrative for why that works.) So he gets to the end of Return of the King, invents Arwen, and then revises the text to include her... she only shows up in Rivendell and only at the dinner, so it's easy to miss. 2a. I personally suspect that if Tolkien had had time for further revisions, he would have given Arwen more prominence, She might even have replaced Legolas in the Fellowship. Of course, since Tolkien very rarely changes lines and just instead gives the old lines to the new character, that could have made Arwen and Gimli kind of flirty. :) 3. Sorry about all the eagle stuff. With any long-existing narrative, this discussion has been running in circles for about 70 years (see also, Balrog wings). 4. Remember that Éowyn did get to fulfill her destiny. Without her, the Witch-King could not have been defeated and he was a notch or two below Sauron (and probably Gandalf the White) in power terms. She's literally saved the world, and getting to explore/reclaim Ithilien with Faramir is a reward, not a consolation prize.
And there is one of the important things that were cut out in the films: the Old Forest. Without entering the Old Forest and meeting Tom Bombadil, the hobbits would have got their blades from Westernesse out of the Barrow Downs. Which is important, as the Witch-King of Angmar could not be injured with ordinary weapons. But Merry's sting into the Witch-King's leg made it only possible that Eowyn could stick her sword between neck and crown, thus killing the Witch-King.
Aragorn was always intended to marry Arwen and reunite the two lines of the half-elven. The decision to include this in LotR occurred late. Arwen only shows up briefly but does have a significant impact, she weaves the banner of Elendil that Aragorn flies. Remember this is a story told by the hobbits and is the story as they see it. They don’t see the romance between Arwen and Aragorn so it isn’t a big thing. Eowyn’s meeting Faramir is the thing that heals her and makes her whole in a way that her feats of arms cannot. The film collapses a large number of elven characters into just 3, Elrond, Arwen and Galadriel. We lose glorfindel and both of Elrond’s sons (and Aragorn’s cousins) and miss the rangers riding to Aragorn with the banner of Elendil.
@@davidwright7193 Arwen took a lot of the role of Glorfindel and Elrond's sons in the movies. However, if you read the book, his proposal to Arwen becomes quite clear when he has to reject Eowyn's love interest. For a long time, Eowyn is a bitter woman by both the fact that she is the one to stay back and Edoras and the woman who was rejected by Aragorn. It took her regular meetings with Faramir in the Houses of Healing to change her mind. And when she did so and agreed to marry the Steward of Gondor and settle with him in Ithilien, she was finally declared to be healed.
Sam. The one and only character to have and even wear the ring but gave it up without hesitation. (In the books, in the movie they do have him hesitate a moment, likely to show that the ring did try to entice Sam, but ultimately it seemed he was not swayed by it.)
Tolkien had a superstition of sorts against switching from one group of characters to another more than he could possibly help, which makes _The Two Towers_ in particular a bit of a trial. I can remember when my father read it to my sister and me, at one point actually starting a protest chant -- "We want Frodo! We want Frodo!" (We were eight.)
My sister gifted me this series ages ago and I still haven't read it. I only read The Hobbit so far. This is really encouraging me to pick it up soon!!
it's so worth it! The first book might take a little to get into, just because of the writing style at points (or at least I had a bit of difficulty with it in the beginning lol) but once you're in you don't come out lol.
Great video! - You can't spell Da-Bomb without Bombadil because he was, in fact, THE BOMB. - Tolkein is so iconic now that people forget he was actually subverting certain tropes. For instance, Eowyn killed the Witch King of Angmar (the most powerful Nazgul) because she was "no man," subverting the prophesy. Of course, Tolkein was so influential that he established new tropes in so doing. - Tolkein claimed he did not like "allegory," but the LOTR clearly has elements that are symbolic or allegorical of the real world. Maybe it's not an allegory in the very strict sense that you can say this character is so-and-so in the real world (like George Orwell's Animal Farm), but clearly the themes of power, corruption, industrialization, etc. all apply to the real world and England specifically.
This video really motivated me to read start reading the book, wich is rare because its's hard to make a video about reading a book and not make it EXTREMELY boring.
Frodo did not throw the ring in the fire. He failed, but the ring was destroyed because of his earlier act of mercy in not killing Gollum whose greed in the end destroyed himself and the ring.
I wouldn't say Frodo "failed" - the One Ring was destroyed and he was material in getting it to that point - it was a "team" effort and each member (not just the fellowship, but the vast stage) that enabled the ring to be destroyed. If you are of the understanding that Frodo "personally" had to be the one to actually throw the ring into the fire of Mt. Doom then he "failed", but my feeling is he "almost" failed, and that spectacularly, but Gollum saved not only Middle Earth, but Frodo himself in the end.
You do Eowyn a great disservice, she was one of the biggest heroes in the story...she killed the Witch-King of Angmar, lord of the Nazgul, it would do you good to both rewatch the movie and reread the chapter on the Ride of the Rohirrim
I'm thinking she must skim books to save time. There were definitely other times she didn't have a grasp of what really went on in the story. Video editing and setting up multiple shots for baking and tea take time you know.
@@JudgeU77 Hey, just to clear this up: I didn't skim read the story. Filming baking obviously takes time lol, but it's absolutely realistic to read lotr in the time I did. I didn't miss that part, I just wanted more for Eowyn. I wanted her to be in the story more and I wanted her to keep being a warrior after the story ended. But as I've mentioned: those were just my honest thoughts while reading lotr for the first time. Take care!
Ah! First read this masterpiece as a 12yr old boy and was completely spellbound. Subsequent readings change preferences for favourite chapters. The parts I initially thought slow and rather tiresome have now emerged as my favourites (The Old Forest, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, The Council of Elrond). This book is ageless as it addresses fundamental human themes all backed up by (still) unparalleled foundations of research & lore.
Thanks for the great video! A couple of thoughts about the eagles being a plot hole in LOTR. One, I think the eagles could have been corrupted by the ring. And two, at least in the movie, the eye of Sauron can paralyze creatures. For example, Sauron paralyzes Frodo with his gaze. So if eagles came flying into Mordor, Sauron would have easily spotted them and brought them down.
The first time I read these books, after reading the beginning of Two Towers, I went back and checked to see if I missed a chapter. One of the things Jackson did that I really liked is he showed Boromir's death, instead of having it happen off the page.
Alot of people say that about the Eagles but the Eagle are not controled by anyone and they would have been spotted pretty quickly. also fly in this context is to move or flee with haste not to literally fly, it is used many times in the books.
Sam did something no one in Middle Earth has ever been able to do. He willingly handed the ring over to someone else (and within sight of Mount Doom no less). Kings have been unable to do that, but Sam could. (Even Bilbo had to leave it behind in Bag End for Frodo. He didn't hand it to Frodo like Sam did.) Sam totally deserved to go to the Undying Lands.
It's all about the Eye of Sauron, and Sauron's baleful attention which can be focussed nearly anywhere on the map. An attack by Eagles is exactly the kind of thing he was expecting, which is why it's so necessary that the Free People's start the war and move troops towards the the great Gate to attract his attention and keep it away from the hobbits. He had the Nazgul on "fell beasts" to add additional aerial reconnaisance which coud have interdicted a flock of giant Eagles with heroes on their backs. Equally, the Eagles were busy with the Goblins of the Misty Mountains which put in another offensive after previously suffering 75% losses ("three parts" i.e. three leaving one left, so three quarters) in the Battle of Five Armies at the end of The Hobbit thirty years previously. All of that is off screen in the book, but the Eagles were part of the forces from the realms shown in the Hobbit which were kept too busy to be involved in the War of The Ring until the last minute. As to what the Ring is, it seems to be allegorical about addiction and about demonic possession. It rurns ring-bearers into wraiths if they're attracted to power, which is it's primary purpose. The One Ring wins battles. It dominates the minds of others so they will fight more fanatically for the wielder, it perhaps gives some kind of tactical genius, and it attracts allies who want to be on the winning side, particularly the wielders of the lesser rings Sauron also forged. The whole etymology of the word "wraith" is important, for Tolkien as a philologist. It's related to the words "wreath", "writhe" and "wroth". And those are the effects of the Ring. It welds the Nine into a circle of loyal servants, it makes them writhe morally until their original personality and good intentions are gone, and it fills them with anger and hatred. Gollum escapes being turned into a wraith, but his original persoanlity is nearly erased by the Ring personality which speaks as "us" and "we", and he is addicted to the Ring. Smeagol is only able to surface for a while because Frodo performs what reads very much like an exorcism on him. Christian miracles are scattered across the text understatedly, like Gandalf performing a miraculous healing, also involving an exorcism of sorts, on king Theoden, and of course Gandalf's resurrection and transfiguration after descending into Middle Earth's underworld for three days during which he fights one of the great demons. Like many writers who were survivors of war, he's returning to the idea of Evil which Edwardian liberal philosophers and psychologists had written off, as the necessary explanation of what they had lived through and been part of as soldiers, and the conceot of the Ring and of wraiths, and the "wraithing" effect of the Rings that warps Ring Wraiths into existence from having been strong, noble, upright Men, is part of trying to explain the nature of Evil for an age which had pretended it didn't exist.
Also theme: friendship. The power and importance of friendship and shared experience. A lot of Tolkien's writing is driven by his great friendships and those friends he lost in the horror of WWI.
I really really liked in the foreword to the first book how he explains like “i didn’t set out to write about a war or anything, i just wanted to write as long a story as i could and make it a history of a place, but then a war happened in real life, so, it ended up the story that it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
Watching u read is like u are reading to me ! Love it 😍... I used to read LOTR when i was in high school but i didn't finish reading it cos the movie was out 🤣 ...but you are making me wanting to start reading it (and finish it this time!)
Reading the whole thing from cover to cover in one sitting is something i have wanted to do for a really long time... sighs! But yes! Upon my reread i also realised how much sam gamgee did for his friend. I always thought the ring symbolised absolute power---thus the corruption of the bearer inside and out and his increasing loss of innocence for greed and distrust in the people around him---perhaps another reflection of the power interplay in the world wars??
As someone who has read the books but also watched the movies many MANY times, I found myself talking back at screen-Christy a lot 😅 but it was very funny and entertaining! ❤️ Also happy holidays everyone
This video inspired me to dig up an old forum post of mine, responding to a request to state when LOTR ends for us as readers. My response remains unchanged these years later. Here it is: I have read the books many times. I of course always read the story-proper in its entirety. I have not, however, read the whole of the appendix since my first read-through back in the mid 1970s. That said, several bits of it are for me indispensable. The first of these is A\I\(v): "Annals of the Kings and Rulers\Numenor\Here follows a part of the tale of Aragon and Arwen." Next comes the concluding few paragraphs of Appendix A, referencing the departure of Legolas and Gimli. I then jump to Appendix B "The Tale of Years" and read from the paragraph beginning "After the fall of the Dark Tower and the Passing of Sauron..." to its end, which includes Sam's departure, the deaths of Meriadoc and Peregrin, and these final two sentences: "Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over the Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf. And when that ship passed an end was come in Middle-earth of the Fellowship of the Ring." I might or might not read more of the appendix during any given re-read, but for me this ends the tale.
For more Arwen, you would need to read the appendices. Many of the appendices are non-narrative, but one is "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" edit: People always forget Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. She's probably the third-most developed female character (after Eowyn and Shelob) in the book.
I read the books long before any LOTR movies. Although it is interesting seeing what Middle Earth and all its creatures may have looked like I really feel the movies took from our imagination. The books are rich in the writing and content. The movies are an adaptation. Very good but tapered for movie audiences. If you try to compare books to movies it’s easy to see the differences. Unfortunately most people (kids especially) don’t read much and so rely on movies for the story. There are whole sections left out or modified from the books. I hope more people will take your cue and READ and really getting the full LOTR experience.
You just summed up my thoughts. I have recently read the work again, for the umpteenth time, and I found I was frequently trying to wipe movie images from my mind as I was reading. The images I had when reading the book, before the movies, were so much more vivid and satisfying.
I loved this vlog, Christy! It was fun to watch you experience reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time. And you are right, Sam is the true hero in this story.
I have been reading Tolkien to my son (he’s almost 9) for the past year and a half. We made it through The Hobbit, LOTR, The Silmarillion, and now we’re deep in the early mythologies. My son agrees with you about Sam-he is the true hero.
I’ve tried reading this book and I just CAN’T, I’m so bored, it’s literally a text book (I mean because I know the story was made for the language lol) and I just couldn’t finish it. The Hobbit I did read though because I wanted to read it before the movie came out and it took me MONTHS to finish it and I hated it. I feel like such a bad fan for not liking the books but reading was never something I fully enjoyed like my siblings (who have all read LOTR and Hobbit by the way) and I hope that when I’m old and bored maybe I’ll actually read lotr and appreciate it more lol
These books were read to me over sixty years ago when I was ten. I have loved them ever since and although Professor Tolkien believed they could never be successfully dramatized, in my opinion, Peter Jackson et al. did an amazing job at faithfully bringing these stories to life through the "lens" of cinematic media. Two points about Eowyn. One: After meeting in the Houses of Healing, Eowyn eventually marries Farimir, Borimirs brother who becomes Prince of Ithilien and is a much better match for her than Aragorn, the last descendent of Elendil and was way above her station. Also saying that she didn't succeed in battle is completely erroneous, she did, after all, succeed, with Merry's help, in killing the Witch-King of Angmar the Lord of the Nazgul, other than the destruction of Sauron I can't think of a higher battle honour. Speaking of which while it is obvious that the tale of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry had to be removed as too distracting from an already slowly developing story in the movie, There are important themes Tolkien introduces here. Firstly Tom is referred to as "Eldest", even the Ring has no effect on him, and more importantly, it is from the Barrow on Barrow-downs where Merry and Pippen receive their weapons. Because they were enchanted specifically with spells to aid in the destruction of the Witch-King of Angmar. Merry by stabbing him with this blade allowed Eowyn to kill him. As you can see from reading the original work, Arwen's role was pretty minimal in the book, and referring to her lineage, Arwen, Elven princess of Rivendell, is the daughter of Elrond (Aragorn's uncle many many generations removed), and his Queen Celebrian. Celebrian is the only daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn of Lothlorian. When PJ dramatized the work he exchanged Glorfindel's role (rescuing Frodo after the stabbing at Weathertop) for that of Arwen to help build her character. To remember the lore regarding the spider Shelob, and yes she is the only one, not a race, you need to refer to the stories in the Silmarillion about Ungoliant a primordial taking the shape of a gigantic spider. She was initially an ally of Melkor in Aman, and for a short time in Middle-earth as well. She was a distant mother of Shelob and the oldest and first giant spider of Arda.
If you don't enjoy the omniscient narrator viewpoint, then you wouldn't enjoy the Appendices. Nevertheless, if you want to understand more fully the issues involved, such as the enmity between Dwarves and Elves, or the relationship between the two kingdoms of the Dunedain, Arnor and Gondor, then you should grit your teeth and slog through them. In particular, Tolkien never could fit the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen into LOTR to his satisfaction, so he relegated it to the Appendices. But to appreciate its full poignancy, you need to understand the history of the descendants of Numenor. It's a beautiful story. And then there's the Silmarillion...
My biggest disappointment from the movies (which I loved for the most part) was the elimination of The Scouring of the Shire. I've always felt that the transformation of the sweet & innocent hobbits into very capable defenders of the Shire was both impressive and sad (but necessary). I would love to hear your perspective.
One of the the things with the eagles is they are ancient, and the ancient races are more powerful, hence more corruptible by the ring. That was why gandalf could not be the bearer of the ring. Random bit of lore
I believe it was Ian McKellen who changed "You cannot pass!" to "You shall not pass!" It wasn't even done as a deliberate choice. He just said the line that way in one take, and Peter Jackson decided "that's the one we're using!"
He says both, "You cannot pass. I am a Servant of The Secret Fire, Keeper of The Flame of Anor. The Dark Fire will NOT avail you, Flame of Udun! You shall not pass!"
procrastinator99 In the book Gandalf says "You cannot pass" four times. He never says "You shall not pass". The movie changed the last time Gandalf says it to "shall not" just before he breaks the bridge.
McKellan was perhaps remembering the famous 'They shall not pass' quote from the Battle of Verdun in World War I (and Tolkien was probably consciously echoing it himself). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_shall_not_pass
The thing about the eagles (17:55) could appear to be a plot hole. But it's not. Not to the fellow Tolkien reader, at least. What's most important is the magnificence of the great eagles a whom they are serving. It would be waaay to long to explain in a proper manner. But, there s only one thing you can do to find out if I'm telling the truth: Read Tolkien's Silmarilion. Trust me, you'll thank me for the advice.... When the 1 billolion dollar (!!!) Amazon Middle Earth series finally comes to screen, in 2022 😉
While it is not hard to find reasons that the Eagles could not be used as a taxi service, it is regrettable that Tolkien did not ask and answer the question in the text, since it occurs to many readers. His main reason, of course, was that using the Eagles that way spoils them entirely as a literary device. In a 1958 letter, Tolkien describes them as a "dangerous machine" that he used sparingly, yet already at "the absolute limit of their credibility and usefulness", showing he is very much aware of the situation. I think it at least as likely that the Amazon production will annoy people who know Tolkien's work very well, as it is likely that it will reward them.
I don’t understand how people still get confused by the eagles. Throughout the entire story any being that carries the ring is eventually corrupted by it. Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo to an extent, Boromir although he redeemed himself right after. Frodo at the very end in Mount Doom, Gandalf refuses to touch it, Galadriel is tempted but passes the test. If an eagle carried Frodo technically it would carry the ring and be corrupted by it and just bring both Frodo and the ring straight to Sauron. They don’t carry Frodo until the very end AFTER the ring has been destroyed.
When I first read LotR as a teen boy, over 40 years ago, it took me 3 months to finish. I would read and re-read passages until the relationship and meaning of many of the names, stuck. I lost count of how many times I have actually read it now, over the intervening years, but it was at least 12. It affected me profoundly. I went on to read everything he published in his lifetime, and 80% of his posthumous works, which are prodigious. There will never be another like him.
SPOILER ALERT! I believe there's a clear reason why the eagle didn't help the fellowship to fly to Mordor. The mission to destroy the One Ring is destined only for Middle-earth's, to those who have good hearts and resistant in corruption and malice of the ring. If they ask for help to the eagles, they are easily to find and target. Sauron had allies in every part of the Middle-earth. And if the fellowship did and successfully accomplish with the eagles, we'll never experience the great journey that happened in the trilogy. If you are curious on why this happened, I highly reccomend to read The Silmarillion. It's about the history of Middle-earth from how its created to Fourth Age. You will understand there why Sauron became The Dark Lord, the Evil and the importance of the eagles.
Just to clarify something about the eagle “plot hole” that isn’t clarified elsewhere, to my eye: the eagles couldn’t fly into Mordor, even if they could bear the Ring (which other people have explained below that they couldn’t), because the land of Mordor was wreathed in thick smog and gloom put forth by Sauron’s magic. Only his eye could see through it, which would mean that the eagles would struggle to navigate and be spotted. To cap it off, Sauron has aerial forces to counter any avian interloper - the Nazgûl and their Fellbeasts. So a plan to send the eagles in would most likely have played right into Sauron’s hands.
Agreed. Any 'forceful' attempt, ground-based or aerial, to take the Ring to Mount Doom would have been met with greater force and Sauron would have reclaimed the Ring. Many people seem to struggle with this. The only way was stealth and the only characters who could have pulled this off without being totally corrupted and while retaining a shred of themselves are the Hobbits. And even they needed Gollum's 'help' in the end. Masterful story crafting.
@@timwebber9277 Yeah. I suppose it really just shows you that military strategy is not obvious to the human mind. It is an Art of War, as Sun Tsu put it. People don't seem to recognise how foolish it would be to risk losing the Ring, corrupting the Eagles, and/or getting them killed, in such an obvious aerial assault. A moment's thought leads to the conclusion that they'd be disadvantaged by Sauron's darkness because they are physical more than spiritual beings, unlike the Nazgul (who can see better in the dark, and certainly better than less spiritual beings). It's a gamble, a bad gamble. Sauron is always on the alert for the things that pose the greatest threat to him - such as the Eagles - hence they are a bad bet. That is the entire reason Gandalf picked the hobbits for his heroes, they are strategically a very sound bet - nobody think to look out for them. One sound principle of strategy is not to attack where you are strongest, but to attack where your enemy least wants to be attacked. It is even better if you can attack in the way they least expect to be attacked. Your enemy has a big land army in the North? Then an aerial assault on their capital in the South is now a big problem: they have a long march to make and a hard puzzle about how to fight a mobile airforce with infantry. Essentially, this is Gandalf's play: Sauron's preparations are all for what he perceives to be his mightiest foes (Gondor, Lothlórien, the Eagles, Erebor), so Gandalf plots that which Sauron can't conceive (destroying the Ring rather than using it) with the foe that is literally beneath Sauron's notice (the hobbits). Strategically, it's perfect.
@@FizzLeeague Your phrase '..beneath Sauron's notice..' is perfectly put. And we should not forget that he has a Palantir too. It will show him a lot, but only those things that he turns his mind to look for. He simply would not conceive that Gandalf might send two weak Hobbits *into* Mordor to destroy the Ring. He *would* suspect that Gandalf might send someone strong *with* the Ring *to* Mordor to openly attack him. And Aragorn played this part perfectly to distract Sauron at the critical hour.
@@FizzLeeague Different topic, I suppose, but there are strong hints that Gandalf didn't really *choose* the Hobbits. A greater power (i.e. the Valar) probably caused Bilbo to 'find' the Ring in the first place and set the whole thing up. Gandalf was just 'their *Man* on the ground' as it were.
@@timwebber9277 I am glad you appreciated it. I admit, I smiled to myself as I typed the phrase as it seemed so apt. I agree with all of the above. Nevertheless, I think the application of the strategic frame simply envelopes this information, taking it within its compass. Yes, Gandalf did not choose for Bilbo to find the Ring, for instance. It may very well be that higher powers meddle in the world. But for the strategist, this is simply a fact of good strategy: adaptation is the mark of the brilliant strategist, and distinguishes her/him from the merely good strategist. In poker terminology, Gandalf is almost never "married to his hand". When new information presents itself, Gandalf is excellent at analysing its strengths, its weaknesses, and the opportunities that it entails. More specifically to your point, Gandalf chooses a hobbit, Bilbo, for the quest for the Lonely Mountain before Bilbo has ever proven such qualities. Once again, he is demonstrating that first point of strategy that we discussed. Smaug has never encountered a hobbit, therefore he will be surprised by it. Furthermore, Smaug being greedy, and only acquainted with dwarves and men, will not conceive that someone would merely wish to pilfer a single item from his treasure trove. Dwarves and men generally seek to slay dragons in order to acquire their whole hoard. In summary, Gandalf foreshadows his strategy in LotR: use the least expected resource to attack the enemy in the way it least expects, is least prepared for, and desires the least. Smaug knows exactly how to fight dwarves and men and their armies, and he is equipped to do so brilliantly; he doesn't want or know how to fight invisible hobbits, nor is he particularly well equipped to. To conclude, Gandalf does choose the hobbits, or at least recognises their aptitudes clearly, from the outset. However, you are right that he recognises new information for what it is and with a very open-mind. Where once he may have advocated for the Long(est) Defeat (hiding the Ring), or removing it for Valinor and finally abandoning Middle-earth (total defeat really), when he sees Bilbo toting a Ring of Power and being reasonably responsible (with a bit of harmless mischief thrown in) he notes it, adapts to it, and incorporates it into his strategic thinking. Thanks to this open-mindedness to the qualities of all things, great and small, Gandalf conceives of the only tactic that can lead to a victory against totalitarian domination (at least temporarily). In a totally tangential observation, Saruman would not have been able to adapt this way, seeing the qualities of folk like hobbits, because he is close-minded. Saruman's mind became stagnant and entrenched, recognising power only where he had witnessed it previously, in its obvious manifestations. He is a great educational opportunity, in an analysis of Tolkien, to explore the importance of being not elitist or patronising towards people or ideas, merely because of humble or base origins. Sorry for the essay, but Tolkien is my specialism (so I'm not really sorry ;) )
Yeah it’s interesting how you don’t know what’s going on with certain members of the fellowship for long periods of time. This is something that actually works better in the book. The movies go back-and-forth so often you kind of lose that. But in the books you genuinely worry about the characters. Case in point the Mouth of Sauron handing Frodo’s armor to Gandalf. You don’t know the Frodo is not dead because we haven’t heard from him for so long. Tolkien also has a lot of fake outs that work better than in the movies. For instance, I really thought that maybe Frodo was dead from Shelob’s sting and Sam was going to have to finish the quest. That moment goes a little too quickly in the films in my opinion.
So everyone here is discussing the books but I'd like to comment on how perfectly you captured the atmosphere of LOTR and the feeling of reading it with this video. The little cuts to tea and the music, its all so perfect. Well done.
agreed (other than the rush- these books are a fine vintage and every sip should be savored). I truly appreciate her setting a mood. I had flashbacks to reading The Hobbit as a kid in a small patch of woods near my home in Maine (during good weather of course). Perfect ambiance.
LotR is hyper daunting for me yet it's my main reading goal for 2022. Thanks for this video, it has given me some more courage to tackle this epic classic. 🤠
Take it in bites. I'd recommend separate books unlike the video here, and by all means do start with The Hobbit! It has more of a children's story feeling, but it is here that Tolkien finds his literary footing.
if anyone is reading all the comments, im gonna sound like im evangelizing, but the audiobook by andy serkis is !! so good !! I’m finding it easier to read this way since i don’t have to sit still lolol. (also, it’s helped me a lot with other long epics to read right after watching a good adaptation (easy with lotr of course)-have successfully read/enjoyed les mis & war & peace this way ! it’s easier to visualize and keep track of the story that way imo)
@@ericaschoenberg7782 you know what... that's a bloody good idea. I'll look into that right now. Thanks for the tip! I've actually done this with a few other difficult-to-read books in the past.
Can’t say I’ve yelled at a RUclips video this much in quite a while. Any bit of criticism, and off I went - no matter if it was followed by a thoughtful explanation or compliment. First, I don’t think it was a slow start. I could have spent an entire book in the Shire. Boromir’s death was tragic. Tolkien himself said that Sam was the most heroic character in the story. Frodo doing his job of destroying the ring and then being left with the deep sadness sounds like a shell shocked solider from WW1. And maybe that is why Tolkien didn’t kill off all his characters - fighting in the Great War and losing so many friends and countrymen and trying to create a new mythos for Great Britain, I think It’s understandable that he wanted happy endings for as many of his characters as possible. And the eagles! It’s not a plot hole - you can’t just fly into Mordor with the Sauron’s eye seeing all and the Nazgul at the ready. The eagles went in after the tower has fallen and the Nazgûl destroyed. Had they tried to just fly in with the ring right at the beginning, they would have failed at destroying the ring and would have all died. Having said all that - fun video! 😆
@@hawkname1234 Dude, I wasn’t yelling at her. I just got worked up while watching the video and yelled my opinions at the video. Like people do when watching movies or tv or whatever. And I thought I acknowledged that my reactions were pretty over the top too. She had interesting takes on LOTR, but I disagreed with some of them, so I commented. And I ended my comment with a compliment - said it was a fun video because it was. People have strong opinions when it comes to Tolkien, but I didn’t think my comment was rude. I was just being honest.
Eowyn killed the Witch King! What do you mean she didn't really get a chance to fight?! One of the biggest "Hell yeah!" moments of both the books and the movies. And she marries Faramir, one of the few people in the books that is not tempted by the Ring. He is essentially the "vanilla mortal" version of Aragorn. (If you go on to read the appendices, it is made clearer that everything Aragorn does in the books is to be be worthy to marry Arwen.) - And you absolutely are right, Sam is the true hero of the books! ( Frodo did not throw the ring into the fire. He did not give up the ring, Gollum took it from him.))
The "Two Towers" refer to Isengard and Minas Morgal, which in turn are the defining landmark of the antagonists encountered by the protagonists in each of part of the volume (Books 3 & 4 respectively).
The eagles could indeed be a plot hole no matter how many reasons for thinking otherwise. They could have kicked the crap out of the Nazgul if they chose. They never lost a fight. The thing I think was missed is Frodo's ending. He didn't throw the ring into the fire; it took him in the end. It's kinda why he could never get over it, plus the Nazgul sword at weathertop as well. but Frodo failed in the end, and you are right, if Sam hadn't had been there, he would not have made it. Tolkien referred to himself as = to Sam in a comparison.
Hey guys 😊 there are a lot of insightful comments going on here which is lovely~ but I just wanted to gently mention: this is just my honest reaction and response to reading lotr for the first time.
I mentioned that I've researched Tolkien's influence and I have memories of watching the films in childhood, but other than that, I don't know the story. I'm SURE I've gotten plenty of things wrong and, because this is just my honest experience of reading the book: no, I didn't feel the need to google every single plot point before talking about it.
I love how passionate you guys are about Tolkien, but please keep that in mind. Take care everyone and happy holidays 💛💛
I was so saddened that Peter Jackson omitted my favorite character as a child, Tom Bombadil. His songs were fascinating a d inspired me to write lyric poetry as a teen in the early 90s. I especially was looking forward to his rescuing Frodo from Old Man Willow. And his yellow boots would have stood out on screen.
I came to better understand pacing and narrative flow and recognize Mr. Jackson did a wonderful job adapting these works to film, but miss Glorfindel.
Oh, I was just reclarifying about the eagles. I was trying to be helpful. I hope you didn't read this like an attack. XD
@@AseAPS No, not at all--I appreciated your comment and the clarification is good! Thank you 😊
Hi Christy, I hope you had a pleasant Christmas :) i was given a boxed paper-back version of the LOTR trilogy about 30 years ago which I still own today, but i like the appearance of the hard-cover version you own.. your arms must be buff from holding it for over a week :D
@@jub8891 The version I have in this video is also about that age! It was printed in 1991 😊 (And yes I think my arms got stronger hahah)
Ohhh yesterday my husband and I finished the three extended version movies. It's a tradition. We always watch them at this time of the year. I love the book and the movies.
My sister and I are just getting through the extended versions on HBO Max since we always just watched the theatrical release/director’s cut. We are loving the longer versions 💖
My friend and I have done this a few time (not during Christmas though). But we are not in the same country atm but the extended versions are the only ones which should exist
My husband and I did the same yesterday too! We do it every Boxing Day!
You must be a glutton for punishment, because the movies are terrible.
@@Brian-qn7fn whhhhaaaat???!!! The movies are so close to the books. They're so good!!! Different strokes for different folks indeed
Tolkien was a master worldbuilder. The Lothlorien chaptera made me want to live there. Other fantasy worlds feel shallow in comparison. Sam is definitely a fan favourite. Faramir is also such a great character.
This video made my day thank you and you are awesome
I would not call other fantasy worlds "shallow". That is a terrible insult if you're blinded by your own faboyism.
Each fantasy world that was crafted has its unique feel and possibly dedication to its construction.
@@mercianthane2503 I don't think its an insult. Tolkien spent decades building out the world. There is a lot of depth in LotR and much more in other books, such as the Silmarillion. While there is definitely value in other fantasy worlds, very few have such a fleshed out and comprehensive wider world.
@@randyward2766
He was a hardcore fantasy worldbuilder, sure.
Still, it is way more important to have a well told story, with fantastic characters, and then you can have the rest.
You might have created 1000 fictional languages for your story; yet if you fail telling a good story, none of that matters. It's meaningless.
Once you've read the Silmarillion Lothlorien takes on a special poignance.
Oh dear, the comments are a lot. So, as others have pointed out, the eagles couldn't carry the ring or someone with the ring because the enemy had eyes everywhere and would have attacked. Also, the ring would have corrupted the eagles and that's never a good thing. One of the reasons why Frodo is the only one who could take the ring was because Hobbits as a whole are really hard to corrupt, the ring even tried it on Sam and it didn't take because he's just not built for greed and power. I too am not a fan of Tom Bombadil, his chapter drags on the story and he's a really annoying character.
Now Eowyn, on first reading you think she gets a crap ending and this is where a rushed reading of the books is bad. She went looking for glory and renown in battle and discovered that war is none of that. It's death, terror and losing those you care for. She lost her uncle and was at death's door herself. As she recovers and becomes close to Faramir (also a fellow soldier who has seen battle and death) she see's that there's more to life than seeking glory and renown. That healing and loving is just as important and brings it's own renown, Eowyn chose to live and love. That's an amazing ending for her. Also, her brother lives, he becomes king of Rohan.
The eagles were also Lords of eagles and very arrogant. Just being near the ring so close to Morder could have corrupted them.
@@youdontneedthis6804 yeah, I kind of pointed that out but didn't get into detail.
You are the only one who I have seen point out the power of the Eagles was actually a draw back. It would be as bad as Gandolf carrying it.
The Eagles might not have been able to carry the ring to Mordor, but the humans really needed some air support in the battle of Minas Tirith.
So yeah, the POV thing. I think it works amazing in LOTR, because Book 3 and 5 give you NO idea what’s going on with Frodo and the Ring. It gave me that feeling like I was Aragorn, not truly knowing if Frodo is even alive, but having hope, and still charging the Black Gate anyway.
....not really....
I have the same edition of Lord of the Rings, isn't it so beautiful? I'm so glad you read it, I did it last year and it was such an amazing experience. I think Eowyn actually did have a satisfying ending - she got to fight and played a significant part in saving Middle Earth, and she ended up marrying Faramir who fit with her more than the idea of Aragorn that she fell in love with. Honestly, Faramir is one of my favourite character in the books. They deserve each other.
I love Faramir. I wish we had a little more focus on them growing their relationship, but I do agree that they fit very well. I am still a little salty about movie Faramir (and Eowyn for that matter 😂)
What edition is that? I have a 50th anniversary 3 volume edition but I'm looking into getting a single volume edition.
@@goosewithagibus It's the edition illustrated by Alan Lee. It was first published in a single volume in 1968, and my particular edition was published in 1991 by BCA. I bought it second-hand and I'm so happy with it!
I will say the reading experience is pretty difficult with this edition, because it's quite a heavy thick book. But it's really beautiful!
@@xJillie As a huge Tolkien LOTR fan growing up, I was super excited for the movies and wanted to love them too. First one was great (despite lack of Tom and Agent Smith Elrond), but then went downhill from there. The way they destroyed Faramir's character was kind of the last straw. And the overly dramatic and overly repeated use of slow motion, especially towards the end is just poor movie making in my opinion, and never fails to distract me out of the moment
I love Faramir. And I love that in their relationship he’s the tender romantic one (bringing his mother’s cloak to wrap around her as she stood on the city wall) and she’s the fierce one. And I love that the two of them who struggled so much with despair and with inadequate fathers/father figure are able to find each other and find healing together. It’s a beautiful ending for someone who wanted to join the battle at the Black Gate for the explicit purpose of being killed.
The enemy had fell beasts and other flying horrors that stopped the eagles from flyings the ring in. Also, the reason they didn't fly the dwarves further in the Hobbit is because they didn't want to get shot by arrows. Mordor certainly had more bow and arrows than the country folk there. Also, the eagles didn't move in until after it was safe enough.
Also, the Eagles are agents of the Valar Manwë, and at this point he's pretty fed up with all the goings on in Middle Earth, where the Elves and Men just keep screwing everything up. They've had three previous opportunities to deal with Sauron, and failed every time because of their stupidity and greed. At this point the Valar are being very much hands off. They've come in to clean up messes in Middle Earth repeated before this point, and every time the Elves and Men just screw things up again, so now the Valar are pretty much saying "This is your mess! You clean it up!"
And the Eagles were not present at the Council of Elrond where the decision of what to do with the Ring and how to do it was made. They could not have made a plan involving the Eagles if the Eagles were not there to agree to it. They were sentient beasts not beasts of burden people could use whenever they liked.
The eagles are the agents of Manwe (chief of the Valar, who are basically gods) and represent divine intervention. However, they decided not to use eagles to help since they already sent the wizards (including Gandalf) to help defeat Sauron. More subtle that way and gives the people of Middle Earth a chance to take responsibility. It's not a very satisfying reason, but it was probably the reason in the author's mind.
The reason given above in OP about flying monster defenders was mentioned by the film writers (I think Fran Walsh) on the DVD commentary track.
Please don't call them "fell beasts". It's a description, not a name - they were beasts, and they were "fell" (deadly). You could equally describe lions, tigers (and wargs) as "fell beasts".
Here’s why they didn’t use eagles. In a couple words, “Ring Wraiths”, but here’s a simple analogy.
Imagine for a moment you’re tasked with killing some 300 foot tall nigh invincible monster. It breaths fire. And it’s only weakness is stabbing it in the back of its throat with a tiny dagger. What would you rather do:
A) wait until it’s sleeping to carefully make your move
B) YOLO and rush it in broad daylight and full vision
Everyone who says they should’ve rode the eagles is basically saying strategy B is a good idea.
The Scene with Sam saying: "one more step and it's the farthest from home I've ever been" does happen just not in the same way. It's during chapter five: a conspiracy unmasked when on the ferry crossing the Brandywine river. All the other Hobbits are looking forward to the other side of the river, whist Sam looks back. Seeing the crossing of the river as the passing of his life as he has known it.
Eowyn wanted to be a warrior but it's something which is not truly for her when she gets the chance. She wants glory and has feelings for Aragorn believing that together she will get great glory and become well-known, instead Aragorn rejects her feelings and this sends Eowyn into a death wish- she wants to die in battle as she wants nothing else in life. By chance she finishes off the witch king of Angmar (the black captain, the leader of the Nazgul) after Merry stabs him with a blade which has a deadly curse against wraiths such as the Nazgul- so thank God Frodo and his friends stumbled into Tom Bombadil, took the wrong way by going to the Barrow-Downs and then were rescued by Tom and Tom then encouraged Merry to keep that enchanted sword!
Eowyn suffers from the "black breath" the worst as her heart is full of despair and bitterness, she is barely revived by Aragorn and when she awakens she feels purposeless and takes no joy in victory. It is only when Faramir says that Eowyn can do something else- be more than a maiden or a warrior, that Eowyn's heart lightens and she acknowledges her love for Faramir. The two have seen much tragedy, death and destruction and both wish to build and don't place the glory of the warrior above all else. Faramir becomes a prince and is given the east Gondor land of Ithilean to rebuild it- so Faramir and Eowyn go to Ithilean to build a new a deserted land. Eowyn and Faramir represent the future for Middle Earth and perhaps a change for the coming 4th Age. Lastly, Eowyn is partly Gondorian which may explain why she ends up permanently living in Gondor.
In later years Tolkien began rewriting some characters and for some of the female characters he greatly increased their significance: for instance Galadriel was to be considered the greatest of all the Noldor Elves save for Feanor, and Melian (the mother of Luthien and Luthien whose line extends all the way to Aragorn!) was to be the head of the wizard order- not Saruman. I'm not sure what Tolkien's views on feminism were but he was clearly becoming more interested in the female characters he wrote.
tom bombadil is one of my favorite characters. hes the forest itself and the only thing not affected by the ring. his silly songs are the best part!!
yes!
That whole Old Forest episode is to me the most mysterious and haunting part of the story. I also believe it is crucial to the story as its hallucinogenic quality creates the necessary level of creative imagination in the mind of the reader that establishes the Middle-Earth experience as mythical rather than just imaginary adventure.
I really believe on some level Tolkien was a Catholic mystic, or at least heavily informed by the more amazing mystic saints.
Yeah. Even in the world of Lord of the Rings there's still unknown and mysterious powers at work deep in the old forests of the world.
Bombadil was in some ways the Alpha & Omega. We caught some rare glimpses into the history of the north during his reminiscences.
How to start a fight with LOTR fans: "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor on the Eagles?" 😂
Or "Why aren't there more women characters in Lord of the Rings? Did Tolkien hate women?"
You have caused a rift in the matrix !
@@whateveryousay5674 they are the eagles of Manwe and Manwe do what he mf want so do they? Nuff said
I could never get through Fellowship. It's just some guys taking a walk. FOR THE ENTIRE BOOK
Sauron is watching
Fokin Nazguls flying around
Eagles are bitch
When it comes to the Eagles, I think everyone is missing the fact that , as the servants of Manwe, they aren’t supposed to be involved in the affairs of middle earth. Remember. Since everyone rejected the rule of the Ainur, they are all on there own in dealing with Sauron, manwe was merciful enough to send the istari. This also goes to why Gandalf restrained himself from acts of wizardry outside of basic or dire need.
When Tolkien says he hates allegory he means what might be called a “closed”allegory where the author has intended a singular meaning for an element of their story. He isn’t opposed to readers finding their own meanings in the work-for him that’s essential to anyone enjoying a work of fiction. He preferred “open” symbols where readers have the freedom to see whatever is meaningful to them in a work. That’s why he refused to explain to people what the Ring symbolizes.
Allegory is the pun of literature.
Something to groan at, not something to admire.
I think he called it "applicability". However Tolkien wrote allegory with "Leaf by Niggle".
Yes, he objected to most allegory as it was usually done badly. He much preferred "applicability". I got in many an argument with my English teachers in high school who insisted Lord of the Rings was allegorical. One was so stubborn they insisted he had inserted allegories and was just denying it in his letters.
@@mudageki and deserving of punitive measures ? ;)
Too bad because the Bible is Allegorical and must translated @ Genesis 32:30 Jacob meets God face to face names the placed. Toluene would be shocked to learn the truth about the Catholics and about OUR origins @ Mauro Biglino & The 5Th Kind channels. & @ Adam 1414 The Lie the Vatican Told
Everyone forgets the flying wyrms that where there even before the ring wraiths rode them into battle. Not until the ring was destroyed and Sauron's hold over the wyrms faltered was it possible to send the eagles into Mordor. If the Great Eagles had appeared in the sky over Mordor before this, his great eye would be upon them and they would have been set on by the flying wyrms. That is a battle that wouldn't have likely given Frodo the chance to get the ring to Mount Doom. Distraction was key. The battle at the gates of Mordor was necessary. Sauron believed that the ring would be there with the men of Gondor. He was wrong thanks to the efforts of two brave little hobbits. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. Not really a plot hole.
Not to mention, well... archers.
Also Sauron, if he got an inkling of what was happening, could have mustered his army to defend Mount Doom specifically, preventing landings and making sure that the Nazgul were on the scene to intercept the Ring.
It really isn't as simple or straightforward a plan as it sounds like when you ask the question and then don't consider how it would actually go down if they did it.
Regarding Eowyn, she did fight in the battle of Minas Tirith as Dernhelm, and she still has her brother Eomer. She ends up marrying Faramir, Boromir's brother, and they're actually a really good match.
To add to this, she and Merry together slew the Witch King of Angmar, the Lord of the Nazguls. That is quite a feat, even shared between them. Aside for Gandalf who defeated the balrog can any other lay claim to such an individual victory? If you include the Hobbit, you can add Bard's slaying of Smaug, but other than that....
@@sableghost Glorfindel slaying Gothmog comes to mind, or Fingolfin wounding Morgoth.
that wedding is filmed but on the cutting room floor. Jackson might release a super extended cut
HANG ON!
Eowyn rides to war, takes part in the charge at the Pelenor fields, Kills the Witch King of Angmar in single combat, though is badly wounded. She the meets someone who loves her back (unlike Aragorn), and her brother is on the throne of Rohan. How is that a disappointing ending for her?
I never saw the eagles as a plot hole. They fly to mordor after Sauron is destroyed. At that point Gandalf could've openly walked to Mt Doom on his own and rescued them, except he'd be too slow.
If everyone else had just marched into Mordor after the ring was destroyed, would people say "Oh well they should've marched to Mt Doom in the first place?"
I think you said that Eowyn did do any fighting. But what? She fought the most dangerous enemy in Middle-earth, the Witch-king, and killed him (Merry helped, but she actually killed him). That was the actual turning point of the battle and without that who knows how long they would have lasted before being overrun. And who knows if even Gandalf would have survived if the Witch-king had not been taken out.
I mean some parts of the battle weren't described at length. Obviously Eowin fought in the battle, but the part where she fights the Witch King is the primary feat that was described. So it's one of those things where we know she's there, we know she's fighting, but we don't have it described directly. I also kind of forgot the death of Boromir was fairly unceremonious as well. That's where the movies had to show us these moments, whereas the books kind of get away with just referencing it.
From what I understand, there’s a few reasons out there of why Gandalf didn’t use the eagles but the one I’ve always liked is that Gandalf didn’t want to hand over that much power to the eagles who are practically God like creatures. It’s the same reason he himself didn’t take it and why Galadriel didn’t either. Whether that’s right or wrong I have no idea.
I believe the whole idea was only unassuming Hobbits could carry the ring right under the enemies nose without being noticed. Flying giant Eagles certainly would have been very noticeable. At least that was always my take.
Regarding Shelob and He-lob, probably. Allow me to refer you to Bilbo's line in The Hobbit where he says "Lazy lob and crazy cob are weaving webs to wind me". I believe both lob and cob are dialectal English words to refer to spiders (cf. cobwebs).
Yaay this vlog gave me such joy! I find it so interesting that you considered writing a thesis on LOTR despite not having read it. It's clearly one of those books that everyone seems to absorb via a kind of cultural osmosis. There was loads of great fantasy before Tolkien as well, and sometimes I'm a bit upset that it gets forgotten that Tolkienesque High Fantasy is just one small corner of a very expansive genre, but it's obvious why he's had the influence he's had.
I hope you have a lovely Christmas!
The passing of Boromir is rather understated in the original text... which is why I am so glad it was handled with more nuance and detail in the movie.
Its kind of weird how two pages are spent on his death and than 50 pages is spent on tom bombadil....over rated....
I understand that many readers aren’t too enamoured with the Bombadil chapters but I personally love them. However, I also understand why they weren’t included in the movies.
The eagles are not mere animals or pets that can be commanded. They are intelligent creations and servants of the very gods of Middle Earth, just as Gandalf is. This is why Gandalf always asks them for help and never commands them. They are basically peers of Gandalf, on the same level as him, but with their own divine tasks and directives.
The eagles are also not so physically powerful that they could bear riders across the world, even though they are large enough to carry people short distances. If Sauron had spotted the eagles carrying his ring then could have sent his flying Nazgul after them. The trek the fellowship takes is based on secrecy and misdirection, which is the reason for all the warfare. Countless people were sacrificing their lives just to distract Sauron.
And finally, it might be that the eagles would never have agreed to physically bear the ring on their persons, just as Gandalf refused to carry it himself, as it was that seductive.
Yes, it is an easy takeaway to think of the Eagles as simple mounts with some basic ability to communicate and think if one has only read the trilogy. On a random note, I think one area that the movies didn't portray well was the serious danger Gwaihir (and Meneldor and Landroval) were in when they agreed to Gandalf's request to recover Frodo.
@@Telthar I wish they had shown the eagles as intelligent in the movies. Even if they didn't make them speak, they could have had Gandalf speak to them and then had him acknowledge their answer to his question. Just something to make viewers aware they are intelligent and capable of conversation.
On a reread of the series I came upon a part I had not noticed before. When Theoden was going off to war the people picked Eowyn to be their leader until/if he didn't return. It is easy to skip over since she instead puts on armor and hides among the soldiers but I found it interesting.
Eowyn did get to fight! She killed the Witch-King. Also, King Eomer is her brother so not all her family died.
The change from "cannot pass" to "shall not pass" is great, because it puts the ownership of the line with Gandalf. You cannot implies that the Balrog is incapable of passing, but changing it to shall not implies that Gandalf is so much more powerful than the Balrog, that HE will not let him pass
If Tolkien wrote "cannot", being a linguistic expert, you can bet there was a good reason.
I think he implied that Gandalf could not allow the Balrog to pass and also that it couldn't, if Gandalf was prepared to sacrifice himself.
"Shall not" implies Gandalf had decided not to let it pass. (Pretty sure that the phrase, in that form, comes from the Spanish Civil War).
In regards to the eagles there’s two reasons it’s not a plot hole. First, if they had tried to fly the fellowship to Mordor, they could have been easily stopped by Sauron. He both can command animals like fell beasts, and conjure storms.
Also, it is very important to note that eagles are sentient beings in this universe. They would be at just a big a risk of being corrupted as Boromir was. The same reason Frodo couldn’t stay with the fellowship would apply to the flying with an eagle. Brings of great power pose the greater risk of failing.
I'd have to disagree that Tolkien was a compulsive world-builder. It's often said that he wrote backstory for decades before he got down to the story and wrote _The Lord of the Rings,_ but that is misleading. Those decades were spent writing the stories he wanted to write, but the publishers couldn't be convinced that they would sell. They became backstory only in retrospect.
I love how you described Frodo as a tragic character and how you compared him to Bilbo. Interesting insight! Arwen is mentioned more in the appendices than the book, and I like that the movie adaptation gave her a stronger role. In case you’re interested, I have a wonderful Lord of the Rings discussion on my channel with Medievalist, Philip Chase, who has a brilliant channel dedicated to critical examination of fantasy. Thank you for another wonderful vlog!
"Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy." is one of the best cliffhangers in literary history.
Very nice video, but I'd like to throw my two cents in on a few of your qualms that I haven't seen addressed:
"Does he ever actually kill characters?"
I would argue that he kills the characters that are necessary. Tolkien also was a firm advocate for what he called "eucatastrophe" in his Endings (meaning the opposite of catastrophe). Essentially, the end of a story should be entirely happy and complete, and all of the characters should receive what they deserve (Hence why it takes so long to wrap up Rotk). So, while some characters do die, using main character death in order to encourage development would keep it from being a full eucatastrophic, escapist conclusion.
"It's a disappointing end for Eowyn"
I disagree with this take. She was able to fight, first when she was chosen by her people to rule when Theoden had to leave for Helms Deep. Then, in the battle of Pelennor fields, she snuck her way onto the battlefield and was the last one standing in the fight with the Witch King, arguably one of the fiercest opponents in the 3rd age. With the help of the Hobbit she snuck into battle, she killed the Witch King, earning her a permanent place as a maiden warrior in the legendarium. Because of her, Theoden died with dignity. Due to the trauma she sustained, she was unable to continue to fight, but she met Faramir and they were able to find healing of their bodies and minds together. She became the Lady of Faramir's lands, no small position, and although she gave up fighting to he one a healer, I believe that this is her way of owning her trauma, and processing it into a healthier, more sustainable outlet. Sure, she doesn't get Aragorn in the end, but she is also a twenty four year old woman, crushing on a man who is nearly 90 years old. She is able to find a much better match in Faramir. It may not be what she initially wanted but I think her story is one of realizing that what you want may not be what you will always want, and it's alright to adjust your dreams as you grow and change.
"Sam doesn't get nearly enough recognition"
A lot of people have mentioned in comments that the Fandom does recognize Sam as the hero, but I totally get why reading it would make you feel that he didn't get what he deserved. In the context of the story, Sam certainly isn't recognized as the hero, but that's what makes him so admirable. In his role as the servant, he is completely humble and does not seek the limelight, even if he is the strongest character in the story. Tbh, I think if he saw the amount of love he gets on the internet now, he would be profoundly uncomfortable with it, so perhaps it's best that he can remain a humble servant in the story, but the hero of our hearts.
Overall, lovely video though! Gorgeous cinematography and some beautiful sentiments.. Hopefully this first dip into LotR will keep you coming back for more, it really is one of those timeless tales where you can always come back and immerse yourself and learn more. Thanks for sharing!
The whole video feels like a massive "tell me you haven't read the book without actually saying you haven't read the book" moment.
Tolkien pioneered the concept of a secondary world in contemporary fiction. Secondary worlds existed before Tolkien, but they were mostly considered fairytales, myths, or pulp fiction. Any modern adult story taking place in an alternate world owes its thanks to Tolkien.
I loved this vlog! It’s been ages since I read LOTR, but I believe you can find Aragorn and Arwen’s whole story in the appendix.
I agree. "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" alone makes reading the appendices worthwhile.
Yay! My new years resolution for 2022 is to read all of Tolkien's work. As a fantasy lover, I also haven't read them all. Just The Hobbit! 💕
Okay, the thing is, the whole purpose of the fellowship was so that theycould go to destroy the ring in secret. If you haven't noticed, there was a huge eye on the tower. The eagles would've been dead the minute they got spotted, which would be instantly. They tried so many things to stay hidden. The eagles only came after the tower was destroyed. Also they are not regular eagles, they don't really respond to every call as far as I know. (They only answer Gandalf's and that is not everytime either.) But we need more qualified fans to explain the other aspects of it. But you're not the first one to think that that's a plothole and you can actually search to see that it is in fact, not a plothole.
I think one of the main reasons Frodo suffered more than Bilbo was not just the ring. He was stabbed by a ring wraith with the morgul knife. Which would have eventually turned him into a ring wraith himself if not for Glorfindel in the books. Arwen played this part in the movies. This injury is also part of the reason he departs to the undying lands. I also believe the ring fought to not be destroyed the closer they got to Mordor the heavier the burden of the ring became which is why Sam had to help him so much. Just a few observations of why Frodo was so much more affected than Bilbo.
another word on the eaglels, as well as the other races in LOTR. these days, fantasy tends to view races of people quantitatively, as in a series of abilities, subject to deductive logic. one hundred dwarves on a mountain would beat 150 elves due to....etc. a very important element of lotr races, and tolkien's view of them, is "what are their natures?" for example, magic (an ability) is rarely referenced. elves dont have the magic ability to walk on snow, that is what they tend to do. they are not a species defined by magic and bowmanship, rather a people defined by memory, grace, and sadness.
the reason we don't see dwarf and elf armies in lotr is not just because they are fighting their own battles, but because they are all fading as peoples as we evolve into a world of humanity and the mundane. the dwarves hide deeper in their mountains, the ents become tree-ish, and the elves despair and return to valinor to steep for the rest of their lives in sad remembrance.
the eagles are not animals, but demigods, representative of the god of the wind in middle earth. they have watched scores of great battles, fom morgoth to the wars or mortals and elves, and sauron. their leige lord has drawn away from middle earth and the grace of the world is fading to the time of men. i've just assumed they really just stay out of it until their drawn in by the movement of destiny. they come when it's their time to come.
also remember that all the happenings in middle earth are a song and story sung by god (eru illuvatar). the story is the key. sam is more important than the eagles, elrond, galadriel, even gandalf. not because of power or even strength, but because he is expressive of such an important theme in this sung story: earnest, selfless faith. more powerful than flight.
and that's why the eagles didnt bring the ring to mt doom. because that's not how the story goes.
Enjoyed this presentation!
One aspect of LotR that struck me on my most recent reading is the contrasting ways that characters respond to the threat of impending doom. There is something haunting, but also understandable, about the madness of Denethor. Some pages later, Gandalf confesses to Pippin, "The truth is, there was never very much hope." (Not sure if my memory is perfect here, but that is what I recall.) Gandalf didn't need a positive prognosis to act.
I personally love the long descriptive passages but to each their own. I’ve immersed myself in this world several times over the years, will likely do so several more times before my demise, and am always rather sad when it comes to an end. I always end up continuing on to The Silmarillion but that book is rather different in nature and not everyone’s cup of tea.
Words have to be changed sometimes to fit a movie script. Remember as they shot the film every there was new updates to the script. They did a really stellar job keeping to the book and the Balkshi animated version.
"Tolkien, do you ever actually kill your characters?"
*Laughs in The Silmarillion*
See also: The Children of Hurin (Greek tragedy levels!)
I don’t know if it’s cannon or just a theory, but I read somewhere that the Ring corrupts anyone who holds it and can reduce them into a shell of a creature, like how it turned Sméagol into Gollum. There’s a fanfic where it turned dragons from free-flying creatures into treasure-hoarders, or slaves to Sauron. And it’s implied that the more powerful you are, the more terrible the effects of that corruption are, which is why Gandalf and Galadriel didn’t dare touch it. So it’s possible the Ring would’ve turned the eagles into lesser beings, hence why they weren’t used, and Tolkien just never explained it.
But I think this is just a theory, so take from that what you will.
"I am now officially finished reading the book...."
Well, no, you have hundreds of pages left. That they're Appendices doesn't make them somehow not there, part of the book.
If you want more story, there are 29 or so additional books of history, etc.,, but the LORD OF THE RINGS are these three books. All of them. If you want to finish reading the original books, you need to read up to the end, not just the end of the narrative.
Or you could legitimately say you've "finished the original story." That's reasonable. But quite obviously you haven't finished the *book*. The entire book doesn't exist to have the last couple of hundred pages ignored, though that's obviously a choice any reader can make.
Including the very important end of Sam's story - if you have skipped the appendices, I suggest you go back and read them. One advantage of the movies is that you have heard the pronounciation of most of the names, and are unlikely to be upset upon discovering in the relevant appendix that you've been mispronouncing any number of names...
“Still no word from Frodo and Sam” is how I feel watching the films. “Oh yeah, Frodo and Sam are in this.”
Great stuff. A few notes, if you're interested.
1. Tolkien acknowledges that Sam is the real hero of the narrative in several of his correspondences. Of course, Frodo was meant to carry the Ring, but it was Sam that was needed to get Frodo to Mount Doom.
2. Arwen is a late addition to the story (and, as others have mentioned, most of their story is in Appendix A). To dip into opinion a bit, I'm confident that the original intention was for Éowyn and Aragorn to marry, but then Tolkien decided that Aragorn needed a 'higher status' wife. You can see the same sort of revisionism in the changing history of Galadriel (except in that case he kept changing their history but not their names). However (and this is typical of his revision process) he left all of the Éowyn foreshadowing in, so it reads now like the narrative is cobbled together from competing traditions, e.g. one oral version says he married Éowyn, one version says he married Arwen and the scribe just combined both versions as much as possible. (See the other comments about the framing story of this being a found narrative for why that works.) So he gets to the end of Return of the King, invents Arwen, and then revises the text to include her... she only shows up in Rivendell and only at the dinner, so it's easy to miss.
2a. I personally suspect that if Tolkien had had time for further revisions, he would have given Arwen more prominence, She might even have replaced Legolas in the Fellowship. Of course, since Tolkien very rarely changes lines and just instead gives the old lines to the new character, that could have made Arwen and Gimli kind of flirty. :)
3. Sorry about all the eagle stuff. With any long-existing narrative, this discussion has been running in circles for about 70 years (see also, Balrog wings).
4. Remember that Éowyn did get to fulfill her destiny. Without her, the Witch-King could not have been defeated and he was a notch or two below Sauron (and probably Gandalf the White) in power terms. She's literally saved the world, and getting to explore/reclaim Ithilien with Faramir is a reward, not a consolation prize.
And there is one of the important things that were cut out in the films: the Old Forest. Without entering the Old Forest and meeting Tom Bombadil, the hobbits would have got their blades from Westernesse out of the Barrow Downs. Which is important, as the Witch-King of Angmar could not be injured with ordinary weapons. But Merry's sting into the Witch-King's leg made it only possible that Eowyn could stick her sword between neck and crown, thus killing the Witch-King.
Aragorn was always intended to marry Arwen and reunite the two lines of the half-elven. The decision to include this in LotR occurred late. Arwen only shows up briefly but does have a significant impact, she weaves the banner of Elendil that Aragorn flies. Remember this is a story told by the hobbits and is the story as they see it. They don’t see the romance between Arwen and Aragorn so it isn’t a big thing.
Eowyn’s meeting Faramir is the thing that heals her and makes her whole in a way that her feats of arms cannot.
The film collapses a large number of elven characters into just 3, Elrond, Arwen and Galadriel. We lose glorfindel and both of Elrond’s sons (and Aragorn’s cousins) and miss the rangers riding to Aragorn with the banner of Elendil.
@@davidwright7193 Arwen took a lot of the role of Glorfindel and Elrond's sons in the movies. However, if you read the book, his proposal to Arwen becomes quite clear when he has to reject Eowyn's love interest. For a long time, Eowyn is a bitter woman by both the fact that she is the one to stay back and Edoras and the woman who was rejected by Aragorn. It took her regular meetings with Faramir in the Houses of Healing to change her mind. And when she did so and agreed to marry the Steward of Gondor and settle with him in Ithilien, she was finally declared to be healed.
Sam. The one and only character to have and even wear the ring but gave it up without hesitation. (In the books, in the movie they do have him hesitate a moment, likely to show that the ring did try to entice Sam, but ultimately it seemed he was not swayed by it.)
Tolkien had a superstition of sorts against switching from one group of characters to another more than he could possibly help, which makes _The Two Towers_ in particular a bit of a trial. I can remember when my father read it to my sister and me, at one point actually starting a protest chant -- "We want Frodo! We want Frodo!" (We were eight.)
My sister gifted me this series ages ago and I still haven't read it. I only read The Hobbit so far. This is really encouraging me to pick it up soon!!
it's so worth it! The first book might take a little to get into, just because of the writing style at points (or at least I had a bit of difficulty with it in the beginning lol) but once you're in you don't come out lol.
I admire Middle-earth and Tolkien’s works greatly. So great to see someone else share that compassion and love for Tolkien!
Great video!
- You can't spell Da-Bomb without Bombadil because he was, in fact, THE BOMB.
- Tolkein is so iconic now that people forget he was actually subverting certain tropes. For instance, Eowyn killed the Witch King of Angmar (the most powerful Nazgul) because she was "no man," subverting the prophesy. Of course, Tolkein was so influential that he established new tropes in so doing.
- Tolkein claimed he did not like "allegory," but the LOTR clearly has elements that are symbolic or allegorical of the real world. Maybe it's not an allegory in the very strict sense that you can say this character is so-and-so in the real world (like George Orwell's Animal Farm), but clearly the themes of power, corruption, industrialization, etc. all apply to the real world and England specifically.
This video really motivated me to read start reading the book, wich is rare because its's hard to make a video about reading a book and not make it EXTREMELY boring.
Frodo did not throw the ring in the fire. He failed, but the ring was destroyed because of his earlier act of mercy in not killing Gollum whose greed in the end destroyed himself and the ring.
I wouldn't say Frodo "failed" - the One Ring was destroyed and he was material in getting it to that point - it was a "team" effort and each member (not just the fellowship, but the vast stage) that enabled the ring to be destroyed. If you are of the understanding that Frodo "personally" had to be the one to actually throw the ring into the fire of Mt. Doom then he "failed", but my feeling is he "almost" failed, and that spectacularly, but Gollum saved not only Middle Earth, but Frodo himself in the end.
You do Eowyn a great disservice, she was one of the biggest heroes in the story...she killed the Witch-King of Angmar, lord of the Nazgul, it would do you good to both rewatch the movie and reread the chapter on the Ride of the Rohirrim
I was wondering how did she miss that part?
I'm thinking she must skim books to save time. There were definitely other times she didn't have a grasp of what really went on in the story. Video editing and setting up multiple shots for baking and tea take time you know.
@@mikelarsen5836 I agree.. The editing in between meals are the most interesting parts..
The ginger-bread man is definitely my least favourite character in Lord of the Rings.
@@JudgeU77 Hey, just to clear this up: I didn't skim read the story. Filming baking obviously takes time lol, but it's absolutely realistic to read lotr in the time I did. I didn't miss that part, I just wanted more for Eowyn. I wanted her to be in the story more and I wanted her to keep being a warrior after the story ended. But as I've mentioned: those were just my honest thoughts while reading lotr for the first time. Take care!
Ah! First read this masterpiece as a 12yr old boy and was completely spellbound. Subsequent readings change preferences for favourite chapters. The parts I initially thought slow and rather tiresome have now emerged as my favourites (The Old Forest, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, The Council of Elrond). This book is ageless as it addresses fundamental human themes all backed up by (still) unparalleled foundations of research & lore.
Same here!
I cant stand it older books have better pacing than this
Thanks for the great video! A couple of thoughts about the eagles being a plot hole in LOTR. One, I think the eagles could have been corrupted by the ring. And two, at least in the movie, the eye of Sauron can paralyze creatures. For example, Sauron paralyzes Frodo with his gaze. So if eagles came flying into Mordor, Sauron would have easily spotted them and brought them down.
The first time I read these books, after reading the beginning of Two Towers, I went back and checked to see if I missed a chapter. One of the things Jackson did that I really liked is he showed Boromir's death, instead of having it happen off the page.
Alot of people say that about the Eagles but the Eagle are not controled by anyone and they would have been spotted pretty quickly. also fly in this context is to move or flee with haste not to literally fly, it is used many times in the books.
You need to rewatch the extended versions of the movies at least once a year otherwise Sauron wins
I'm hoping to rewatch the films really soon! I'm desperately due to rewatch them, and I feel like christmas is a really good time to do that
I totally agree there :) I might just do the same ahah
Sam did something no one in Middle Earth has ever been able to do. He willingly handed the ring over to someone else (and within sight of Mount Doom no less). Kings have been unable to do that, but Sam could. (Even Bilbo had to leave it behind in Bag End for Frodo. He didn't hand it to Frodo like Sam did.)
Sam totally deserved to go to the Undying Lands.
Sometimes I'll pick up lotr just to read a few pages. Tolkien's prose is top tier.
Your predilection for preparing snacks is very Hobbit-like. And imparts a calming ASMR feel.
14:30 “There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.” - Miracle Max, _The Princess Bride_ (1987)
It's all about the Eye of Sauron, and Sauron's baleful attention which can be focussed nearly anywhere on the map. An attack by Eagles is exactly the kind of thing he was expecting, which is why it's so necessary that the Free People's start the war and move troops towards the the great Gate to attract his attention and keep it away from the hobbits. He had the Nazgul on "fell beasts" to add additional aerial reconnaisance which coud have interdicted a flock of giant Eagles with heroes on their backs. Equally, the Eagles were busy with the Goblins of the Misty Mountains which put in another offensive after previously suffering 75% losses ("three parts" i.e. three leaving one left, so three quarters) in the Battle of Five Armies at the end of The Hobbit thirty years previously. All of that is off screen in the book, but the Eagles were part of the forces from the realms shown in the Hobbit which were kept too busy to be involved in the War of The Ring until the last minute.
As to what the Ring is, it seems to be allegorical about addiction and about demonic possession. It rurns ring-bearers into wraiths if they're attracted to power, which is it's primary purpose. The One Ring wins battles. It dominates the minds of others so they will fight more fanatically for the wielder, it perhaps gives some kind of tactical genius, and it attracts allies who want to be on the winning side, particularly the wielders of the lesser rings Sauron also forged. The whole etymology of the word "wraith" is important, for Tolkien as a philologist. It's related to the words "wreath", "writhe" and "wroth". And those are the effects of the Ring. It welds the Nine into a circle of loyal servants, it makes them writhe morally until their original personality and good intentions are gone, and it fills them with anger and hatred. Gollum escapes being turned into a wraith, but his original persoanlity is nearly erased by the Ring personality which speaks as "us" and "we", and he is addicted to the Ring. Smeagol is only able to surface for a while because Frodo performs what reads very much like an exorcism on him. Christian miracles are scattered across the text understatedly, like Gandalf performing a miraculous healing, also involving an exorcism of sorts, on king Theoden, and of course Gandalf's resurrection and transfiguration after descending into Middle Earth's underworld for three days during which he fights one of the great demons. Like many writers who were survivors of war, he's returning to the idea of Evil which Edwardian liberal philosophers and psychologists had written off, as the necessary explanation of what they had lived through and been part of as soldiers, and the conceot of the Ring and of wraiths, and the "wraithing" effect of the Rings that warps Ring Wraiths into existence from having been strong, noble, upright Men, is part of trying to explain the nature of Evil for an age which had pretended it didn't exist.
Also theme: friendship. The power and importance of friendship and shared experience. A lot of Tolkien's writing is driven by his great friendships and those friends he lost in the horror of WWI.
I really really liked in the foreword to the first book how he explains like “i didn’t set out to write about a war or anything, i just wanted to write as long a story as i could and make it a history of a place, but then a war happened in real life, so, it ended up the story that it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
The scene where Sam rescues Frodo and when he carries him up Mount Doom; I cried.
Watching u read is like u are reading to me ! Love it 😍... I used to read LOTR when i was in high school but i didn't finish reading it cos the movie was out 🤣 ...but you are making me wanting to start reading it (and finish it this time!)
Reading the whole thing from cover to cover in one sitting is something i have wanted to do for a really long time... sighs! But yes! Upon my reread i also realised how much sam gamgee did for his friend. I always thought the ring symbolised absolute power---thus the corruption of the bearer inside and out and his increasing loss of innocence for greed and distrust in the people around him---perhaps another reflection of the power interplay in the world wars??
"Tolkien, do you kill any of your characters?"
Somehow, Tolkien foresaw the casting of Sean Bean before he was even born.
As someone who has read the books but also watched the movies many MANY times, I found myself talking back at screen-Christy a lot 😅 but it was very funny and entertaining! ❤️
Also happy holidays everyone
This video inspired me to dig up an old forum post of mine, responding to a request to state when LOTR ends for us as readers. My response remains unchanged these years later. Here it is:
I have read the books many times. I of course always read the story-proper in its entirety. I have not, however, read the whole of the appendix since my first read-through back in the mid 1970s. That said, several bits of it are for me indispensable.
The first of these is A\I\(v): "Annals of the Kings and Rulers\Numenor\Here follows a part of the tale of Aragon and Arwen." Next comes the concluding few paragraphs of Appendix A, referencing the departure of Legolas and Gimli. I then jump to Appendix B "The Tale of Years" and read from the paragraph beginning "After the fall of the Dark Tower and the Passing of Sauron..." to its end, which includes Sam's departure, the deaths of Meriadoc and Peregrin, and these final two sentences:
"Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over the Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf. And when that ship passed an end was come in Middle-earth of the Fellowship of the Ring."
I might or might not read more of the appendix during any given re-read, but for me this ends the tale.
For more Arwen, you would need to read the appendices. Many of the appendices are non-narrative, but one is "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen"
edit: People always forget Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. She's probably the third-most developed female character (after Eowyn and Shelob) in the book.
She was a brave woman after Saruman took over the Shire.
And Ioreth in the Houses of Healing. She's the kind of person that leaves you breathless listening to her speak.
@@ericstoverink6579 Because she talks without taking a breath.
Where would you rank Galadriel and Goldberry? Before or after Shelob?
I read the books long before any LOTR movies. Although it is interesting seeing what Middle Earth and all its creatures may have looked like I really feel the movies took from our imagination. The books are rich in the writing and content. The movies are an adaptation. Very good but tapered for movie audiences. If you try to compare books to movies it’s easy to see the differences.
Unfortunately most people (kids especially) don’t read much and so rely on movies for the story. There are whole sections left out or modified from the books. I hope more people will take your cue and READ and really getting the full LOTR experience.
You just summed up my thoughts.
I have recently read the work again, for the umpteenth time, and I found I was frequently trying to wipe movie images from my mind as I was reading. The images I had when reading the book, before the movies, were so much more vivid and satisfying.
I loved this vlog, Christy! It was fun to watch you experience reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time. And you are right, Sam is the true hero in this story.
I have been reading Tolkien to my son (he’s almost 9) for the past year and a half. We made it through The Hobbit, LOTR, The Silmarillion, and now we’re deep in the early mythologies. My son agrees with you about Sam-he is the true hero.
Love that you took us on this journey. The thoughts, the questioning 😍 I could watch the whole nine days 😂
I’ve tried reading this book and I just CAN’T, I’m so bored, it’s literally a text book (I mean because I know the story was made for the language lol) and I just couldn’t finish it. The Hobbit I did read though because I wanted to read it before the movie came out and it took me MONTHS to finish it and I hated it. I feel like such a bad fan for not liking the books but reading was never something I fully enjoyed like my siblings (who have all read LOTR and Hobbit by the way) and I hope that when I’m old and bored maybe I’ll actually read lotr and appreciate it more lol
These books were read to me over sixty years ago when I was ten. I have loved them ever since and although Professor Tolkien believed they could never be successfully dramatized, in my opinion, Peter Jackson et al. did an amazing job at faithfully bringing these stories to life through the "lens" of cinematic media. Two points about Eowyn. One: After meeting in the Houses of Healing, Eowyn eventually marries Farimir, Borimirs brother who becomes Prince of Ithilien and is a much better match for her than Aragorn, the last descendent of Elendil and was way above her station. Also saying that she didn't succeed in battle is completely erroneous, she did, after all, succeed, with Merry's help, in killing the Witch-King of Angmar the Lord of the Nazgul, other than the destruction of Sauron I can't think of a higher battle honour. Speaking of which while it is obvious that the tale of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry had to be removed as too distracting from an already slowly developing story in the movie, There are important themes Tolkien introduces here. Firstly Tom is referred to as "Eldest", even the Ring has no effect on him, and more importantly, it is from the Barrow on Barrow-downs where Merry and Pippen receive their weapons. Because they were enchanted specifically with spells to aid in the destruction of the Witch-King of Angmar. Merry by stabbing him with this blade allowed Eowyn to kill him.
As you can see from reading the original work, Arwen's role was pretty minimal in the book, and referring to her lineage, Arwen, Elven princess of Rivendell, is the daughter of Elrond (Aragorn's uncle many many generations removed), and his Queen Celebrian. Celebrian is the only daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn of Lothlorian. When PJ dramatized the work he exchanged Glorfindel's role (rescuing Frodo after the stabbing at Weathertop) for that of Arwen to help build her character. To remember the lore regarding the spider Shelob, and yes she is the only one, not a race, you need to refer to the stories in the Silmarillion about Ungoliant a primordial taking the shape of a gigantic spider. She was initially an ally of Melkor in Aman, and for a short time in Middle-earth as well. She was a distant mother of Shelob and the oldest and first giant spider of Arda.
If you don't enjoy the omniscient narrator viewpoint, then you wouldn't enjoy the Appendices. Nevertheless, if you want to understand more fully the issues involved, such as the enmity between Dwarves and Elves, or the relationship between the two kingdoms of the Dunedain, Arnor and Gondor, then you should grit your teeth and slog through them. In particular, Tolkien never could fit the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen into LOTR to his satisfaction, so he relegated it to the Appendices. But to appreciate its full poignancy, you need to understand the history of the descendants of Numenor. It's a beautiful story. And then there's the Silmarillion...
My biggest disappointment from the movies (which I loved for the most part) was the elimination of The Scouring of the Shire. I've always felt that the transformation of the sweet & innocent hobbits into very capable defenders of the Shire was both impressive and sad (but necessary). I would love to hear your perspective.
Similarly, my disappointment was the lack of sharkey.
One of the the things with the eagles is they are ancient, and the ancient races are more powerful, hence more corruptible by the ring. That was why gandalf could not be the bearer of the ring. Random bit of lore
Technically, not a trilogy as the individual parts are not complete in themselves. It is one story in three parts.
Or ... Six books. :)
LOTR is super awesome! I read it once and plan to read it again and again
I believe it was Ian McKellen who changed "You cannot pass!" to "You shall not pass!" It wasn't even done as a deliberate choice. He just said the line that way in one take, and Peter Jackson decided "that's the one we're using!"
He says both, "You cannot pass. I am a Servant of The Secret Fire, Keeper of The Flame of Anor. The Dark Fire will NOT avail you, Flame of Udun! You shall not pass!"
procrastinator99 In the book Gandalf says "You cannot pass" four times. He never says "You shall not pass". The movie changed the last time Gandalf says it to "shall not" just before he breaks the bridge.
@@donsample1002 I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I WAS referring to the film. By "He" I mean Ian McKellen. My quote is the movie line directly.
McKellan was perhaps remembering the famous 'They shall not pass' quote from the Battle of Verdun in World War I (and Tolkien was probably consciously echoing it himself). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_shall_not_pass
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the long denouement, the scouring of the shire, the departure at the Grey Havens, etc. One of the best parts IMO,.
The thing about the eagles (17:55) could appear to be a plot hole. But it's not. Not to the fellow Tolkien reader, at least.
What's most important is the magnificence of the great eagles a whom they are serving.
It would be waaay to long to explain in a proper manner. But, there s only one thing you can do to find out if I'm telling the truth: Read Tolkien's Silmarilion.
Trust me, you'll thank me for the advice....
When the 1 billolion dollar (!!!) Amazon Middle Earth series finally comes to screen, in 2022 😉
While it is not hard to find reasons that the Eagles could not be used as a taxi service, it is regrettable that Tolkien did not ask and answer the question in the text, since it occurs to many readers. His main reason, of course, was that using the Eagles that way spoils them entirely as a literary device. In a 1958 letter, Tolkien describes them as a "dangerous machine" that he used sparingly, yet already at "the absolute limit of their credibility and usefulness", showing he is very much aware of the situation.
I think it at least as likely that the Amazon production will annoy people who know Tolkien's work very well, as it is likely that it will reward them.
I don’t understand how people still get confused by the eagles. Throughout the entire story any being that carries the ring is eventually corrupted by it. Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo to an extent, Boromir although he redeemed himself right after. Frodo at the very end in Mount Doom, Gandalf refuses to touch it, Galadriel is tempted but passes the test. If an eagle carried Frodo technically it would carry the ring and be corrupted by it and just bring both Frodo and the ring straight to Sauron. They don’t carry Frodo until the very end AFTER the ring has been destroyed.
So you remember the Po-ta-toes line but you forgot how Boromir died?
When I first read LotR as a teen boy, over 40 years ago, it took me 3 months to finish. I would read and re-read passages until the relationship and meaning of many of the names, stuck. I lost count of how many times I have actually read it now, over the intervening years, but it was at least 12. It affected me profoundly. I went on to read everything he published in his lifetime, and 80% of his posthumous works, which are prodigious. There will never be another like him.
SPOILER ALERT!
I believe there's a clear reason why the eagle didn't help the fellowship to fly to Mordor. The mission to destroy the One Ring is destined only for Middle-earth's, to those who have good hearts and resistant in corruption and malice of the ring. If they ask for help to the eagles, they are easily to find and target. Sauron had allies in every part of the Middle-earth. And if the fellowship did and successfully accomplish with the eagles, we'll never experience the great journey that happened in the trilogy.
If you are curious on why this happened, I highly reccomend to read The Silmarillion. It's about the history of Middle-earth from how its created to Fourth Age. You will understand there why Sauron became The Dark Lord, the Evil and the importance of the eagles.
I had to look it up, of course, “nuncheon” is not only used by Hobbits, Merriam-Webster marks the word as dialectal, chiefly England.
Just to clarify something about the eagle “plot hole” that isn’t clarified elsewhere, to my eye: the eagles couldn’t fly into Mordor, even if they could bear the Ring (which other people have explained below that they couldn’t), because the land of Mordor was wreathed in thick smog and gloom put forth by Sauron’s magic. Only his eye could see through it, which would mean that the eagles would struggle to navigate and be spotted. To cap it off, Sauron has aerial forces to counter any avian interloper - the Nazgûl and their Fellbeasts. So a plan to send the eagles in would most likely have played right into Sauron’s hands.
Agreed. Any 'forceful' attempt, ground-based or aerial, to take the Ring to Mount Doom would have been met with greater force and Sauron would have reclaimed the Ring. Many people seem to struggle with this. The only way was stealth and the only characters who could have pulled this off without being totally corrupted and while retaining a shred of themselves are the Hobbits. And even they needed Gollum's 'help' in the end. Masterful story crafting.
@@timwebber9277 Yeah. I suppose it really just shows you that military strategy is not obvious to the human mind. It is an Art of War, as Sun Tsu put it. People don't seem to recognise how foolish it would be to risk losing the Ring, corrupting the Eagles, and/or getting them killed, in such an obvious aerial assault. A moment's thought leads to the conclusion that they'd be disadvantaged by Sauron's darkness because they are physical more than spiritual beings, unlike the Nazgul (who can see better in the dark, and certainly better than less spiritual beings). It's a gamble, a bad gamble. Sauron is always on the alert for the things that pose the greatest threat to him - such as the Eagles - hence they are a bad bet. That is the entire reason Gandalf picked the hobbits for his heroes, they are strategically a very sound bet - nobody think to look out for them.
One sound principle of strategy is not to attack where you are strongest, but to attack where your enemy least wants to be attacked. It is even better if you can attack in the way they least expect to be attacked. Your enemy has a big land army in the North? Then an aerial assault on their capital in the South is now a big problem: they have a long march to make and a hard puzzle about how to fight a mobile airforce with infantry. Essentially, this is Gandalf's play: Sauron's preparations are all for what he perceives to be his mightiest foes (Gondor, Lothlórien, the Eagles, Erebor), so Gandalf plots that which Sauron can't conceive (destroying the Ring rather than using it) with the foe that is literally beneath Sauron's notice (the hobbits). Strategically, it's perfect.
@@FizzLeeague Your phrase '..beneath Sauron's notice..' is perfectly put. And we should not forget that he has a Palantir too. It will show him a lot, but only those things that he turns his mind to look for. He simply would not conceive that Gandalf might send two weak Hobbits *into* Mordor to destroy the Ring. He *would* suspect that Gandalf might send someone strong *with* the Ring *to* Mordor to openly attack him. And Aragorn played this part perfectly to distract Sauron at the critical hour.
@@FizzLeeague Different topic, I suppose, but there are strong hints that Gandalf didn't really *choose* the Hobbits. A greater power (i.e. the Valar) probably caused Bilbo to 'find' the Ring in the first place and set the whole thing up. Gandalf was just 'their *Man* on the ground' as it were.
@@timwebber9277 I am glad you appreciated it. I admit, I smiled to myself as I typed the phrase as it seemed so apt. I agree with all of the above. Nevertheless, I think the application of the strategic frame simply envelopes this information, taking it within its compass. Yes, Gandalf did not choose for Bilbo to find the Ring, for instance. It may very well be that higher powers meddle in the world. But for the strategist, this is simply a fact of good strategy: adaptation is the mark of the brilliant strategist, and distinguishes her/him from the merely good strategist. In poker terminology, Gandalf is almost never "married to his hand". When new information presents itself, Gandalf is excellent at analysing its strengths, its weaknesses, and the opportunities that it entails.
More specifically to your point, Gandalf chooses a hobbit, Bilbo, for the quest for the Lonely Mountain before Bilbo has ever proven such qualities. Once again, he is demonstrating that first point of strategy that we discussed. Smaug has never encountered a hobbit, therefore he will be surprised by it. Furthermore, Smaug being greedy, and only acquainted with dwarves and men, will not conceive that someone would merely wish to pilfer a single item from his treasure trove. Dwarves and men generally seek to slay dragons in order to acquire their whole hoard. In summary, Gandalf foreshadows his strategy in LotR: use the least expected resource to attack the enemy in the way it least expects, is least prepared for, and desires the least. Smaug knows exactly how to fight dwarves and men and their armies, and he is equipped to do so brilliantly; he doesn't want or know how to fight invisible hobbits, nor is he particularly well equipped to.
To conclude, Gandalf does choose the hobbits, or at least recognises their aptitudes clearly, from the outset. However, you are right that he recognises new information for what it is and with a very open-mind. Where once he may have advocated for the Long(est) Defeat (hiding the Ring), or removing it for Valinor and finally abandoning Middle-earth (total defeat really), when he sees Bilbo toting a Ring of Power and being reasonably responsible (with a bit of harmless mischief thrown in) he notes it, adapts to it, and incorporates it into his strategic thinking. Thanks to this open-mindedness to the qualities of all things, great and small, Gandalf conceives of the only tactic that can lead to a victory against totalitarian domination (at least temporarily).
In a totally tangential observation, Saruman would not have been able to adapt this way, seeing the qualities of folk like hobbits, because he is close-minded. Saruman's mind became stagnant and entrenched, recognising power only where he had witnessed it previously, in its obvious manifestations. He is a great educational opportunity, in an analysis of Tolkien, to explore the importance of being not elitist or patronising towards people or ideas, merely because of humble or base origins.
Sorry for the essay, but Tolkien is my specialism (so I'm not really sorry ;) )
Yeah it’s interesting how you don’t know what’s going on with certain members of the fellowship for long periods of time. This is something that actually works better in the book. The movies go back-and-forth so often you kind of lose that. But in the books you genuinely worry about the characters. Case in point the Mouth of Sauron handing Frodo’s armor to Gandalf. You don’t know the Frodo is not dead because we haven’t heard from him for so long. Tolkien also has a lot of fake outs that work better than in the movies. For instance, I really thought that maybe Frodo was dead from Shelob’s sting and Sam was going to have to finish the quest. That moment goes a little too quickly in the films in my opinion.
So everyone here is discussing the books but I'd like to comment on how perfectly you captured the atmosphere of LOTR and the feeling of reading it with this video. The little cuts to tea and the music, its all so perfect. Well done.
So you mean frantically reading it without break with nothing but coffee and cigarettes is wrong? Asking for a friend
agreed (other than the rush- these books are a fine vintage and every sip should be savored). I truly appreciate her setting a mood. I had flashbacks to reading The Hobbit as a kid in a small patch of woods near my home in Maine (during good weather of course). Perfect ambiance.
Sam: Sam is the principle protagonist. So, your thoughts on the is spot on. It's a novel where Sam is the hero, truly.
LotR is hyper daunting for me yet it's my main reading goal for 2022. Thanks for this video, it has given me some more courage to tackle this epic classic. 🤠
It's mine too! Already read the Hobbit and the Silmarillion, now I need to get with the Trilogy.
Take it in bites. I'd recommend separate books unlike the video here, and by all means do start with The Hobbit! It has more of a children's story feeling, but it is here that Tolkien finds his literary footing.
if anyone is reading all the comments, im gonna sound like im evangelizing, but the audiobook by andy serkis is !! so good !! I’m finding it easier to read this way since i don’t have to sit still lolol. (also, it’s helped me a lot with other long epics to read right after watching a good adaptation (easy with lotr of course)-have successfully read/enjoyed les mis & war & peace this way ! it’s easier to visualize and keep track of the story that way imo)
@@ericaschoenberg7782 you know what... that's a bloody good idea. I'll look into that right now. Thanks for the tip! I've actually done this with a few other difficult-to-read books in the past.
I read Lord of the Rings for the first time around 1975
Can’t say I’ve yelled at a RUclips video this much in quite a while. Any bit of criticism, and off I went - no matter if it was followed by a thoughtful explanation or compliment. First, I don’t think it was a slow start. I could have spent an entire book in the Shire. Boromir’s death was tragic. Tolkien himself said that Sam was the most heroic character in the story. Frodo doing his job of destroying the ring and then being left with the deep sadness sounds like a shell shocked solider from WW1. And maybe that is why Tolkien didn’t kill off all his characters - fighting in the Great War and losing so many friends and countrymen and trying to create a new mythos for Great Britain, I think It’s understandable that he wanted happy endings for as many of his characters as possible. And the eagles! It’s not a plot hole - you can’t just fly into Mordor with the Sauron’s eye seeing all and the Nazgul at the ready. The eagles went in after the tower has fallen and the Nazgûl destroyed. Had they tried to just fly in with the ring right at the beginning, they would have failed at destroying the ring and would have all died. Having said all that - fun video! 😆
You should be nicer. Nobody wants to hear that you're yelling at them.
@@hawkname1234 Dude, I wasn’t yelling at her. I just got worked up while watching the video and yelled my opinions at the video. Like people do when watching movies or tv or whatever. And I thought I acknowledged that my reactions were pretty over the top too. She had interesting takes on LOTR, but I disagreed with some of them, so I commented. And I ended my comment with a compliment - said it was a fun video because it was. People have strong opinions when it comes to Tolkien, but I didn’t think my comment was rude. I was just being honest.
Eowyn killed the Witch King! What do you mean she didn't really get a chance to fight?! One of the biggest "Hell yeah!" moments of both the books and the movies. And she marries Faramir, one of the few people in the books that is not tempted by the Ring. He is essentially the "vanilla mortal" version of Aragorn. (If you go on to read the appendices, it is made clearer that everything Aragorn does in the books is to be be worthy to marry Arwen.) - And you absolutely are right, Sam is the true hero of the books! ( Frodo did not throw the ring into the fire. He did not give up the ring, Gollum took it from him.))
The "Two Towers" refer to Isengard and Minas Morgal, which in turn are the defining landmark of the antagonists encountered by the protagonists in each of part of the volume (Books 3 & 4 respectively).
I gotta finish mine now!! I have them and then stuff happened but I wanna make it my goal to read them by spring 2022!
The eagles could indeed be a plot hole no matter how many reasons for thinking otherwise. They could have kicked the crap out of the Nazgul if they chose. They never lost a fight. The thing I think was missed is Frodo's ending. He didn't throw the ring into the fire; it took him in the end. It's kinda why he could never get over it, plus the Nazgul sword at weathertop as well. but Frodo failed in the end, and you are right, if Sam hadn't had been there, he would not have made it. Tolkien referred to himself as = to Sam in a comparison.
all true fans know how important Sam was but Sam was very humble.