Too Much To Dream

Allegory versus Fiction

People. This is a public service announcement. Please read carefully. In order to prevent the administrator of this website from inflicting further ire upon well-meaning but (grinds teeth) mistaken persons who keep (Grrrr!) missing the point whenever she expresses criticism of those who insist upon calling the fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings an "allegory" when they mean, well, a work of fiction, please first memorize these definitions:

al·le·go·ry: The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

fic·tion: An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

And then read this essay, Faith and Fantasy: Tolkien the Catholic, The Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson's films, which is so far the best-written and clearest explanation of what Tolkien's work really means in the context of his religious beliefs, and most important, why the book he wrote is not and never will be an allegory.

(Link to the essay via a reader who is probably shaking singed fingertips and muttering "Damn? What the hell did I do?" My apologies, binkley.)

My head, it hurts

Oh my god. Lord of the Rings is a "pagan fantasy world"? Kill me now -- I can't take it any more. In the Corner Stanley Kurtz says this in an aside in a post about the possible decline of Christmas observation in an increasingly secular world. I look forward to all the Tolkien admirers on NRO tearing Kurtz a new one for this -- probably in vain, since it was just an aside.

(Link via open book.)

Update: well, here's Kurtz's reaction to emails containing, among other things, complaints about this -- but unfortunately they were from stupid (okay, less informed) people saying "it's a catholic (sic) allegory." And Kurtz just reiterates his shtick: LOTR has a "pagan veneer." Asshead. LOTR has a Christian veneer. See, unlike members of some other religions Christians (or at least, Christians like Tolkien) don't dismiss the time pre-Crucifixion as a to-be-ignored "time of ignorance." Instead, they are forever trying to see signs of God's presence in the pre-Christian past; some go so far as to call the other sacrificial cults (that involved Christ-like deities who became human and were slain, etc.) and so on of pre-Christian times evidence of the "foreshadowing" of the Incarnation. Is it so strange to think that Tolkien looked at his imaginary past through a Christian outlook, and certainly did not mean for all the pagan-like cultish behavior that has sprung up among his fans (and which I am guessing are the real source of Kurtz's "pagan veneer" remarks) to be the result of reading his story? Oh whatever -- I am beginning to think it is no use.

PS: I went ahead and opened comments -- I need you to berate me for my nasty, druggie, uterus-having ways.

The Scouring of the Thing

Colby Cosh has a brief commentary on the matter of leaving the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire" out of the Lord of the Rings movies. (This really should be no spoiler to anyone anymore.) Colby agrees with this person that it should have been left in the movie.

[THE FOLLOWING CONTENT DOES NOT REFER TO COLBY COSH IN ANY WAY]* You know, I wouldn't blame Jackson for telling people who say things like this** to raise their own dough, hire their own camera crew and actors, and filming the goddamn book to their own purist demands. Be that as it may, while it would have been nice to see every single word and scene in the books filmed intact (I do think that so far -- haven't seen part 3 yet -- the best moments in the films are the ones that are straight out of the original text, there's a thrill to them that the other scenes lack), I acknowledge that it would have taken more money than god has, not to mention infinite patience on the part of studios and moviegoers, to endure the ten-movie (each five hours long) marathon that would no doubt result. Or something like that -- I don't know. By the way, I'm not interested in arguments to the contrary; if you think it's so important that the book be "done right, unlike the way that hack Jackson did it" then you do it.

By the way, Tolkien originally started writing because he wanted to read stories he enjoyed reading, and he had noticed that there was a dearth of that type of thing about in his day. He didn't just sit and whine and complain about the inadequacy of the fiction that other authors put out. After a point complaints become redundant, and you start to look as if you are simply engaging in mental masturbation instead of doing anything useful about whatever irritates you. Of course, I understand that movie-making is more expensive than writing a book, but with the price of video cameras dropping every day... I wonder if one day people making their own movies will do to the vast Hollywood machine what blogs seem to be starting to do to the vast news media machine... (See Jeff Jarvis for more on that subject.)

But to continue, before I finally succeed in prying myself away from my computer so I can catch the bus to the movie theater, the writer that this woman (whose post Colby referenced) cites got one significant detail wrong that makes me suspect his purist credentials. This Ian Rowan states, after the Shire had been scoured:

The ruffians are driven out after a proper application of the citizen militia, and Samwise returns to his wife and daughter.

Uh. Samwise did no such thing after the thugs had been ejected from the Shire. Samwise was unmarried. What Samwise did was get married, after finding out that Rosie Cotton had been unhappy at his leaving the Shire. Samwise returned to his wife and daughter after seeing Frodo off at the Grey Havens, in the final chapter "The Grey Havens." Really, all it would have taken was for Mr. Rowan to reach behind him to his bookshelf where I assume that his copy of the novel has its place of honor. Or so I assume. Don't mess with a real Tolkien fan. [END PART ONE OF NON-COLBY COSH CONTENT]*

And yes, Colby, I have read the Appendices, and I knew that the cute hobbit names in the book were "Anglicizations" of their "real" names.

[PART TWO OF NON-COLBY COSH CONTENT]* (And you know, I haven't even touched upon Claire Wolf's end spiel about this movie being "...swords and sorcery amount to nothing more than sound and fury; an army of special effects and dazzling cinematic visions, desperately in search of a greater meaning." In other words: "this movie didn't tell me what I wanted to be told or relieve me of some possibly unrelated mental baggage so on some level it failed." Whatever. There are so many problems I have with that attitude that I don't have time right now to list them all. One day I may sit down and do so, but not today.) [END PART TWO OF NON-COLBY COSH CONTENT.]*

Updates:

*Jesus. I get back home, after being lifted and transported by the viewing of Peter Jackson's great achievement, in no small part because I was finally rid of stupid fears like I would get hit by a truck or have a meteor land on me before I got to see it, and that it would suck donkey balls or something instead of being the amazing work of art that it is, and I get dragged right back down to fucking earth. Thanks, human race.

**This is not meant to be directed at the authors of this post linked here particularly, but if the shoe fits that isn't my fault. YMMV.

Getting Tolkien Wrong Again

Via Kathy Shaidle comes this rather unoriginal article on the Christian faith underlying Lord of the Rings. The writer gets a few things wrong.

First, the character of Gandalf is not, as the writer (one Kevin Miller) states, "clearly a Christ figure." There is nothing so clear about the "resurrection" of Gandalf -- in fact, it is more correct to state (and one could find this out from simply reading Tolkien's own commentary on the book, available in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien) that Gandalf is clearly an angelic messenger and aide -- mostly as a morale-builder -- to "free men and creatures everywhere" in the war against "the Shadow" -- aka, Sauron (who, by the way, is not meant to represent Satan but only one of his lieutenants). Jesus wasn't, according to what I was taught in church in my "long ago youth," a mere angel.

Then Mr. Miller goes off into a slight tangent where he outlines what I presume are some of the objections Christians might have to seeing the film: "How can one reconcile the scenes of violence, destruction and occult-like practices with the above information about Tolkien's faith? How could the love of Christ spawn such a monstrosity? Perhaps, you may be thinking, reading all that pagan mythology from the Middle Ages seriously messed with Tolkien's head, co-opting his faith rather than the other way around."

Excuse me for not entirely understanding what Miller is talking about here -- the only "pagan mythology from the Middle Ages" that I am aware of Tolkien being much involved with is Beowulf -- and he came to the conclusion in studying it that that poem was in fact a Christian rewriting and/or composing of a work with pagan characters that was yet meant to resonate with Christian listeners.* (Somewhat like his own work.) Again, this information is available with a little bit of research; in fact, it is easier to get one's hands on a copy of "The Monsters and the Critics" than it was before the movies came out -- I had to borrow it from the community college library.

But I suppose this is meant to be a bit of parental reassurance rather than a serious scholarly treatise on the man and his work. Miller has read the thumbnail bio of Tolkien that just about every writer on this subject has had time to peruse for the last three years, and seems to at least have a better idea of the plot and characters than many movie reviewers, though he makes the theme sound like Christianity Lite: "If you're good enough, and merciful enough, then doggone it, Jesus will love you!" Actually, he seems mostly to have gotten his ideas from the films; that's the feeling I get anyway. (Perhaps that is where his misconception of Gandalf as the Messiah comes from -- all that white light and stars and the makeover when he "returns.")

It would have been nice, though, if he had done more than (it seems) skim the book. The films, while excellent adaptations of the novel, are not really the best source for understanding its author's religious beliefs.

*Disclosure: I wrote a paper a couple of years back for a Medieval Humanities class on the Christian themes in Beowulf, so I am not just talking out of my behind. I may scrounge up the paper and put it online one of these days; it was all right, though not one of my best.

A case of the Mondays

Since this was a particularly annoying Monday, I don't have much to say tonight. But there is one thing I forgot to mention in my post from the weekend, and that is what greeted my eyes as I came back from my errands (click for larger pic):

I took the picture this morning, but it looked just the same then as it did Saturday. Apparently some bimbo, driving god knows what, had managed to crash into the mail kiosk. I can't quite figure out how she managed, because if you will take a look at the next photo (again, click for a larger one):

-- you can see that there is a rather high concrete rise from the parking lot to the walkway. I can only suppose that she was trying to pilot a Uhaul truck, or perhaps a small yacht, and backed into the thing. It must have made the most godawful noise; I'm glad I wasn't there to hear it, as my nerves are not what they used to be.

Anyway, the upshot is, I have no idea where my mail is going. The girl at the manager's office said to call the post office on Hiawassee Road.

Oh well. Here is another piccie for you all to enjoy (clicky clicky for larger):

Weekend after next, come hell or high water, I know what I am going to go to the theater to see. I do need something to cheer me up; nothing like a long, incomprehensible, boring movie filled with characters nobody can possibly care about to make me feel better about myself. Oh wait, I'm not going to go see Seabiscuit; that was the bad dream. Seriously, why do people who have no appetite (apparently) for heroic fantasy movies go see them, only to complain that they were bored and felt as if they were being tortured? It's not as if ROTK is something new no one had ever done before; it is the last part of a three part movie. If you didn't like parts one and two, you aren't going to suddenly like part three, especially since the characters you didn't care about in the first two movies are also in the third movie. But then again, this person preferred, among other fare (like Peter Pan, a story I have always found to be creepy in the extreme), Gone With the Wind, a film I have never been able to watch more than five minutes of before changing channels.

By the way, I'd also like to see Master and Commander, and I plan to rent out that pirate thing that the Elf was in. That's about it for me and movies.

PS: yes, I know that the grammar in this entry sucks, but I don't care, I'm tired and posting anything at all tonight was like swimming through cold molasses.

Orc-talk

Crooked Timber provides the valuable service of, among other things, being a sort of clearing house for all the sphere o' blogs' snobs to get together and dis whatever is the chatterati's bugbear du jour. This being that time of year, the big High Kulchah no-no is to admit that Lord of the Rings is one's favorite novel, or in one's list of favorites.

Now I am sure it is not news to my two or three readers that said book is definitely in my top ten. But you know, I can see why the litcrit brigade hates it so. It's too long. It's about imaginary places and made-up creatures, like a (shudder) fairy tale. All that monarchism -- how reactionary! There is no self-consciously beautiful language that calls attention to itself and screams "Look at me! I'm a Writer!" There is too much exposition -- for instance, the scenes between Gandalf and Saruman, which are real-time action sequences in the movie, take place in expository flashback in the book during the council of Elrond. In fact, all the rest of the scenes in the movie (both parts one and two) with Saruman are not in the book; Saruman's actions are only the subject of discussion and speculation, and there is no face-to-face meeting with him until after the Battle of Helm's deep, a scene which I assume will be in the third movie in some form or another.

But I digress. The commenters to the above-linked post mostly follow the Bloomist "Jane Austin rules, Tolkien drools" line of partisanship. There doesn't seem to be much room for the idea that one can read both authors and find them fine for different reasons. After all, they wrote in different times, about different things...

This is all part of the neverending fight over what constitutes Proper Litrachoor, as opposed to the "good reads" us hobbits grubbing around in our cottages like to curl up with. The idea on the part of the litcrit brigade seems to be "let them watch Survivor." If we won't read -- and praise! -- their idea of "the right books" then we are consigned to the caverns of the Morlocks.

The idea that "high" culture should be difficult and make one uncomfortable comes, I think, from the religious origins of academic culture. The university system, whose denizens are the de facto guardians of the culture, began as an offshoot of the church, and the religious attitude towards things High Educational remains though the term "secular" itself no longer refers to those daily things having nothing to do with scripture that are however necessary for the church to work in the temporal world, but instead now means the opposite of anything having to do with religion. This is why so many academics seem to approach their subjects like flagellants, and also why the opposite phenomenon -- Manic Fun!, i.e., Postmodernism -- has taken such a hold on academic life; this seems to be a particular disease of the Philosophy and Humanities departments of many universities. I have known many an English major who had a simple enjoyment of reading beaten out of him by course after mind-numbing course on theory and dialectics and what-have-you. I myself barely escaped with my sensibilities intact from a minor in Creative Writing. True, I got an "A" in my first course. I wrote a story, which focused almost entirely on character -- there was hardly any of that nasty plot stuff, and my hero -- well, my protagonist -- was almost entirely passive, as many modern short stories seem to call for these days. (Action implies plot, as well as sexism or some other -ism unless your protagonist is a carefully delineated Person of Color and Non-Male Gender -- then she can be a superhero with supernatural powers; you can call it "Magical Realism" and invoke the name of Borges or somebody. You think I exaggerate? Ha ha! Only slightly, I assure you.) I had it online once, maybe I'll put it back up; it wasn't bad, if I do say so myself.

But I'm one of those crass vulgarians who wants to read a story when I sit down; I am not particularly looking to be "shocked" or "made uncomfortable" or "introduced to new ideas," when doing so, though if this happens in the course of my reading I am not put out. But I don't consider that I have wasted my time if I haven't had my horizons blasted open by a breathtaking new insight (or whatever it is these people seem to be jonesing for) when I finish a book.

As it is, I recall the first time I read LOTR, I certainly felt as if I had changed somehow. For the better I hope, but that's something only time will tell. After reading Pride and Prejudice I didn't get this feeling, though I enjoyed the book. Quite frankly I consider most of Austen's work "light" reading -- but that is just my own personal classification system, not to be taken seriously by anyone else. I think that a lot of people invoke her name, though, because they identify her with everything that is "nice" high culture -- afternoon tea, lace and crumpets; people who say "Sir," "Ma'am" (and pronounce it "Mum"), and "Thank you"; men and women walking arm in arm across the Mall; in short, all those "English" things that people seem to associate civilized behavior with. (I blame Masterpiece Theater.) I like all those things too -- and I imagine that the reason I do is the same reason people seem to set up the Austen style as the opposite of Tolkien. Sure, they talk a great game about her "careful character delineation" and her "delicately nuanced language," all of which is bullshit, if I may use a term that Miss Austen would cover her ears rather than hear.

I say that Jane Austen's novels are, in this day and age, as fantastical as Tolkien's or any other fantasy writer's -- even more so, because Tolkien writes about all those gritty, downbeat things like war and violence and death, as well as about things like tea and parties and sitting by a cozy fire. The worst thing I think anyone does in an Austen novel is tell someone off. (Then again, this may seem devastating enough to people who would rather face a horde of ten thousand orcs single-handed than be cut dead at a party.) Okay, I exaggerate just a tad. But my point is....

Bilbo moment. What was my point?

Oh yeah. My point is that Tolkien dissers come off as snobs because their critiques all seem based on social approbation and being known as reading either what is "cool" or what is "civilized." Thus: Austen in, Tolkien out. Or -- (insert famous name in littrachoor) in, Harry Potter out, to link this to the wider world of "realistic" fiction versus straight "childish" fantasy. And by the way, speaking of how devoting oneself to higher culture is supposed to be "good" for one's character, I provide this anti-example: one commenter to the above-linked post snarked about wishing he could tell some hapless reader of Lord of the Rings that "Gollum dies." This pretty much seems to sum of the collective litcrit protest against the book. I left one response, but now I have thought of a couple others -- be really brave, tell someone reading Pride and Prejudice not to worry, Eliza gets to marry the lord of the manor; or, "Good. I hate that little stinker."

Updated/insert: I just wanted to mention that I am in full agreement with Gary Farber's statement that calling readers of Tolkien "witless" and "childish" and saying that all "literature" (as it is known today) is pretentious crap are not useful arguments. Even if I do believe that most modern "littrachoor" is pretentious crap. So is most of everything, some science-fiction writer said once. (Yes, I know who said it, and yes, I have tried to read Theodore Sturgeon's work. I found it to be pretentious crap.)

PS: if you want to hear some of the actual literary criticisms (as opposed to Literary criticisms) of Tolkien, as well as their demolishment by the same critics, get the extended dvd of The Two Towers. The verdict in short? Storytelling wins over perfect adherence to Rewls of Littrachoor.

PPS: if you want a laugh -- a painful one, that is -- listen to the actors' audio commentary over the movie on the same release. Of the two movies' audio commentaries, the actors' versions anyway, I prefer the ones for Fellowship. The actors, at least the principals -- yes, I mean you, Mr. Wood, Mr. Astin, Mr. Monaghan, and Mr. Boyd -- have had time to let their pretentions flower. Especially groan-worthy is to hear Astin and Wood babble on about how the book is really about "all religions" or can communicate to "all religions" and how "all religions are really all about the same thing" or something like that. (I don't feel like writing a transcript.) How can I put this delicately: I don't think that a) Tolkien would have seen it that way, and b) I don't think the actual members of most other religions think so either. It's all very sweet, this We Are All Children of the Universe mentality, but it's also the equivalent of covering your ears and singing "la la la" very loudly. Oh well, thank god for Hollywood, it's like having our own little Shire full of happy, ignorant hobbits.

PPPS: Look! Comments are open! I am curious to see what people think. For now.

Middle Earth Review Online

Well, this is interesting: NRO's Jonah Goldberg is going to be on a minidocumentary on the Return of the King dvd. No, really.

[Later] By the way, sorry I haven't posted much of late. I have been "too" much of this and that -- too tired, too busy, too bored -- though for some reason I get my energy back when it comes to other peoples' comments. This can't be a healthy thing. For one thing, I had the idea of getting back into a hobbity mood and writing all about the movies and the books and so on -- for one thing, because they make me feel good. But then I made the mistake of getting into some sort of blogfight with a pedantic little scholar from Stanford (or so his email address claims), who made claims such as: Peter Jackson is an "artistic failure" for not following the book to the letter, or for not making the movie "Catholic" like the books were so people would rush out in droves to join up -- you know, I first read the book in my early teens and have read it umpteen times since, and I was never interested in the slightest in joining the Catholic church. And here I am, still not Catholic! It must be all Peter Jackson's fault, the heathen.

I don't know what was more annoying, the hyperbolic criticism, or the "from authority" voice in which the criticisms were given, which I have noticed is a habit common to many participants in the varsity drag. Perhaps it's merely a reflex, an unfortunate habit of spending too much time in an academic setting. Be that as it may, I told the person in my last comment that although I have many criticisms of Jackson's approach to the storyline I'll be damned if I write about them now. I'd feel like I were giving aid and comfort to an enemy of something -- maybe of just the simple ability to enjoy a play or a book or a movie without some yokel butting in and taking it apart bit by bit.

So I am going to nurse my inner hobbit (I have already dined well) and just ignore the doodleheads. To them the dubious comforts of faculty sniping and graduate work one-upmanship, and all the rest of the mishegas. I don't know what I'll be writing about here in the upcoming days, but I think it will be something different. Or maybe not. We'll see.

(PS: that's right, no link to the blogfight in question. I don't want it to develop any more than it has, and I'd feel bad if my sniping caused the blog owner's web server space to become overwhelmed. I'd also feel about as bad if nothing happened: "Hey! Where did my one or two readers go?")

(PPS: I feel more like working on (ominous bassoon music) my site design. Muahahaha.)

(Update: extraneous commas removed for increased ease of reading.)

Pictures worth a thousand words

They're from Return of the King, and they seem to give evidence that Jackson is going to follow the original of the third part of the story fairly closely, unlike the improvisations and "inspired by" additions that afflicted The Two Towers. How long until December? Not that long anymore. Drool, drool.

Hobbitses

Everyone needs some cute hobbit pictures. Caution: I rather doubt this is work-safe.

The Precious is ours!

I'd like to thank the kind reader who sent me the dvd of The Two Towers.

Seeds of our demise, part 79191

Excuse me, I have to go stick skewers in my eyes now.

Uncoliath

This is so very, very wrong.

(PS: add to your geek cred by guessing where I got the title pun from! Both sources.)

Lord of the Rings images

The OneRing.net has a whole passel of images from the extended version of The Two Towers and the Return of the King trailer. (No permalink to the entry -- it's among those for today's date. Look for "spoilers!" in red.)

Here's a sample (click for full size):

Can you guess the scene? Win fabulous prizes! (Well, not really. But being right is its own reward, so they are always telling me...)

Waiting for Frodo

Obsessed? I don't know what you mean...

(Via Solonor's Ink Well.)

We wantss your votes, Precioussss...

Oops, Arnie's got some some competition:

A sample of his, erm, campaign platform:

He proposes to rid California of “nasssty industrial factories” and return the area to its natural state, or a slightly altered version: swampland. He also proposes a new solution to the energy crisis that has plagued the state for some time: “When the yellow face goes down…nasssty lights stay off.” When the problem of the decreasing school budgets arose Gollum merely replied, “Teach them about fisssshesss…” In fact, Gollum would like to see California return to the bartering system, using fish as currency instead of dollars.

I wonder how many votes he'll get...

D'orcs

Oh god, another useless column that strings together a bunch of words so the writer can make a paycheck and the publication can fill some white space and drag some eyes to its adverts. This time the publication in question is This is London, and the subject is J.R.R. Tolkien vs. J.K. Rowling. There are (all together now) several inaccuracies in this little thing. One: both authors did not feature "a young, innocent hero." The only version of Lord of the Rings where Frodo is both young and innocent is the current movie version. In the books Frodo is actually nearly fifty, which in "hobbit years" is meant to represent a period of past youth but not middle age -- say, equivalent to a human in his mid-thirties. Obviously, this Malcolm Burgess fellow has not bothered to do the most cursory research before he typed up his column. I daresay he would not even have had to read the actual book to find out Frodo's actual age; he could probably have found a fan site on the internet with more info than he needed or wanted.

"Lots of places with Capital Letters." Er, what? English grammar rules demand capitalization of place names, of made-up countries as well as real ones. I'm not getting this. It's filler in a filler column.

Evidence for the assertion that people who read Rowlings books will be reading "only one book this year" comes from where?

Crickets chirping.

I see.

The rest is crap. Into the Fiery Mountain with it.

(Via the Onering.net.)

Is it December yet?

Something (my calendar) tells me "no." Bastards. Oh well, anyway, I'm just passing this on:

Hey, I know Viggo's a hippy dork, but come on. Let's be good winners.

They laughs at us, they does

It's been a while. Yes, I'm getting really antsy waiting for December. Anyway, here's a diversion: Never Bored of the Ring. Here are some samples from the Chick's Middle-Earth Dating Guide:

Dwarves:

If you are vertically challenged or very self-confident, then this is the Middle Earth Species for you.
.......
Orcs:

At heart, aren’t most males really just fighting the urges of their inner Uruk-Hai?
.......
Elves:

Lust, lust, lust, you tarty thing YOU.
........
Hobbits:

They are always up for a party, love a good time and do well in pubs…its rather like fraternity boys all over again, isn’t it?
.....

Then there is the The Tolkien Traveler’s Guide to Middle Earth (on the other side of the same page):

Location: The Shire

[...]You are more in danger of bumping your head after falling off a pub table during an extended night of drinking at a local tavern than anything else in The Shire. [...]Be sure and bring hangover remedies with you.
........
Location: Rivendell

Fast Facts: Often thought to be the Ancient Aspen of Middle Earth, Rivendell is at once, old and mystic, modern and on the move.
........
Location: Mordor

Attractions: Well, the price is certainly right. Another plus: You will have absolutely no problems getting a reservation. Truly. Locals are ready to take your call as we speak (1-888-MORDORSUCKS).

Shopping: No.

Climate: For those of you looking to soak up some rays, Mordor is the tanning Mecca of Middle Earth. Just be sure and pack plenty of sunscreen.

(Via the Onering.net.)

I want my DVD!

My The Two Towers extended edition DVD, that is. Here's a rundown of the added footage that will be on the release.

What do you mean I have to wait for November! ::shakes:: (Then again, by that time I'll be able to afford it.)

(Via TheOneRing.net.)

Tricked-Out Hobbit-Hog

This is just so... wrong: The Lord of the Rings Harley Davidson. I've never been on a motorbike, but from the looks of it you could have a symbol of the Ring right in your crotch. Um. Okay. (Via The Onering.net.)

Return of the King Pics

Good ones, available here. Dig Fierce Pippin. Yum.

Things I did not know

If I lived in Wilmington, Delaware, I could live on the banks of the Brandywine River. This has been your six-degrees-of-separation-from-Middle-Earth moment.

If looks could kill they probably will

Here's a little something to keep us all occupied while we all wait until December to roll around: Tolkien computer games.

Or you could go play Tolkien Baseball.

(Yes, I am feeling to ill to post anything of note tonight. Darn stomach virus.)

Return of the King

There are some new images available of the upcoming third part of Lord of the Rings. It's looking good so far.

There were also some other pictures up on this site earlier today, but they were removed at the request of the filmakers. The reason given is that they were of poor quality -- I can vouch for that, having seen them; for the most part they were dark, blurry, and barely recognizable to someone who hadn't already seen parts one and two of the trilogy.

Well, hell

Cable teevee hell has already started. I turned it on only to see a message that my service had been turned off, to call the service. So I call. "Oh, they changed some software, call this number to have your box turned back on." So I did, and after twenty minutes of unsuccessful fiddling I have another appointment with a cable guy on Thursday. All hail technology! Frankly, I think it's a conspiracy to get me to wake up early.

Oh well, I still have my dvd player. By the way -- I just wanted to point this out: the opening words of The Fellowship of the Ring where Galadriel is "the world is changing, I feel it in the water, I feel it in the air" etc., are actually in the book -- Treebeard says them to Pippin and Merry in The Two Towers. It strikes me as quite clever of the scriptwriter to choose those words to open the movie with. (With which to open the movie? Bah, you're not getting good grammar from me at this hour.)

I have to say it

"Never trust an elf!"

Oh come on. Like I'm the only one.

No blood for pipe-weed!

One ring to fool them all. The Orcs were just protesting against being marginalized!

(Via alert reader Joe McNally.)

Some are born to greatness

Numenorean


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

(Via Dave.)

Pippin update

Here's a treat for the Billy Boyd obsessives out there: an interview with the ex-hobbit. He answers fan questions. (Via TheOneRing.net.) Check out the reference to a movie he and fellow ex-hobbit Dominic Monaghan are cooking up set in my ex-home town. Have I used "ex-" enough?

Hobbits Go A-Hunting

I was just looking around (innocent stare) and found this, from around this past New Year's. Maybe I should set up a new category: "Things to Upset Hippie Vegans."

Fun with Instant Messenger

Heh heh. I was just complaining to Dave Tepper that I couldn't find the Lord of the Rings AIM Buddy Icons. Then I remembered that they are on the movie site. Now I'll show up as Frodo. I'm so pathetic.

Update: I've just made an icon of myself, so I may or may not change to that. I look pretty good, I think.

Update the second: I have now made the AIM name linkable -- you can click on it to send me an instant message. (Thanks to Andy at World Wide Rant.)

10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more

Peter Jackson plays with aeroplanes:

Film maker Peter Jackson turned to directing of a different sort yesterday as he helped choreograph a World War I battle scene in the Marlborough skies.

(Via TheOneRing.net.)

Scratch an actor...

"...and you'll find an actress." -- Dorothy Parker.

It seems that someone thinks Elijah Wood is Very Very Gay. Now why would someone think that? (Actually, it is my theory that all actors are gay, and all actresses are straight, which is why they -- the actresses -- are so bitchy. Why do you think La Sarandon really has that look on her face all the time like she just bit into an underripe lime?)

Update: oops! I forgot to say -- via Dave Tepper, who's been a very naughty boy. Probably.

Two Towers dvd news

Here's some release info for the 2-disc set. I wonder if this time I will be able to hold out for the extended release...

How's about a hug?

So which LOTR Villain are you? Hmm??
made by Michelle at EmptySpace.

Pippin passes

I know a few people who will enjoy this interview with Billy Boyd. (Via the OneRing.net.)

Home and castle

This might appeal to some people: you can buy a home in Rivendell. Of course, it looks like you'll be needing to make a troll's hoard of a salary to afford it, but livin' large Elf-style don't come cheap. (Caveat: these homes don't really look anything like Elrond's digs, but instead seem to be the usual higher-end, vaguely "rustic" style suburban ranch-type home. Some of them even have those hideous, useless entry-archway things that are too big to to be called "stoops" and too small to be any type of porch. Via Dustbury.)

What's in a name?

At the bottom of this post Steven Den Beste complains about the dull, prosaic names Americans tend to give wars:

Unfortunately, these things have a tendency to name themselves rather than being susceptible to any deliberate naming. "Operation Desert Storm" was a reasonably catchy title, but eventually Americans came to call it "The Gulf War". (As if it was the only war which anyone had ever fought in the Gulf.) I suspect the current operation will end up being called "The Second Gulf War" or something equally prosaic. Somehow it seems a shame that we should end up giving such uninspiring names to places and times where we think the issues are so important that we're willing to send our young people fight, and kill, and die.

I was reminded -- of course! what were you thinking? -- of a passage in The Lord of the Rings -- the book, not the movie. It's in the chapter "The Grey Havens." The problem of what to call a new street of hobbit-houses, built as part of the restoration of the a battle-damaged neighborhood, has come up:

"The was some discussion of the name that the new row should be given. Battle Gardens was thought of, or Better Smials. But after a while in sensible hobbit-fashion it was just called New Row."

Mt. Doom Live! with Geraldo

Bwahahaha! (Click for larger.)

Snagged from Slate. Found via the OneRing.net.

News from Middle Earth

It's been a while, and I know you're all panting for more inane chatter about The Lord of the Rings films and related subjects. Here goes:

Apparently there is a scene from upcoming part three The Return of the King on the Two Towers Xbox/Gamecube game discs. Though from the scene described here, it could just as easily be an outtake from The Two Towers that will turn up on the dvd version of that film. Then again, that all depends on the sequence of how Jackson filmed the story's scenes.

Orlando Bloom (Legolas) may appear in a movie about Colditz Castle, one of the places the Nazis kept Allied POWs. I only mention this because there is an odd remark made by the screenwriter. (This is in reference to a controversy involving the possible whitewashing of the Nazis in that film.) The screenwriter says: "I think it's refreshing to see the German army of that period portrayed in a good light for a change." Okay, sure he's the screenwriter and he's going to say nice things about his own script, but what is it with this urge to spread niceness all over every damn thing? Some stuff that happened is evil, some people are just plain bad, and there is no need to nice them up. It's just another example of the mistaken notion that portraying evil as evil will somehow make more evil.

Here's a nice, interactive "Come to New Zealand" promo based on the films. it's got maps and interviews and things.

Sure, Peter Jackson is a great director, but I still have no interest in his latest project, a remake of King Kong. I can't think of a less necessary remake, though I'm sure anything will be an improvement over the Dino Di Laurentiis fiasco (of which I have only been able to endure tidbits). I've never understood the appeal of this film in any of its manifestations. Sorry, guys, giant ape movies just don't do it for me.

Not a hobbit

For some reason the thought of Ari Fleischer kicking back at night to watch Fellowship of the Ring is hilarious.

Lord of the Rings people gossip

Here's an interesting interview with Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson, on the need for the government of New Zealand to start offering tax breaks if they really want to boost the film industry in that country. He's quite sensible on this matter -- his films were the only ones allowed to take advantage of a tax loophole that the government promptly closed. But apparently the government is inhabited by wacky Green Socialists of some sort to whom the words "tax incentive" are like garlic to vampires, so I don't hold out much hope for his scheme. (You can also get a realvideo of the interview here -- I recommend doing a "save target as" and downloading it to your own hard drive. The video also has him talking about the reasons he didn't go to the Oscars -- 1) he was busy finishing up ROTK, 2) he just didn't think it was appropriate at this time, no security worries or antiwar shizzle, just he thought partying at this time inappropriate. Personally, I think the thought of flying twenty hours just to go to the Oscar hullabaloo struck him as being about as much fun as going to the dentist. He did call the LOTR-themed Oscar party some fans threw in L.A. instead.)

Via NZPundit.

All y'all

Back the fuck up.

Okay?

Diversion

Well, since I can't sleep, this goes out to Mike, who requested it. I don't usually do requests, so don't be all thinking you can ask me for stuff. It don't work that way. The mistress gives only when she's in a givin' mood, see what'm sayin'? Now go show Mike some love.

(psst: hold your mouse cursor over the pic for the secret message!)

Lord of the Rings video clips

Here's a break in the war stuff: if your computer has the capabilities, you can watch clips of The Two Towers as well as interviews with Elijah Wood and Peter Jackson on MSNBC. You can even watch bits of all those other movies that are up for Oscars, if such things interest you.

(From TheOneRing.net.)

Gollum's Way

That's what Canada's government has taken, according to John Robson, who gets bonus points for quoting from the book, not the movie.

(Via Sharon Ferguson. The hobbits will be back soon -- trust me.)

War of the Poses

No, Tim -- she means World War Eleventy-One!

Say it with runes

In looking for an Anglo-Saxon translator (Google has a Klingon and a Faroese and a h4X0r translator but no Anglo-Saxon! Bummer) I found this neat Runic translator, which will translate English words into the letters J.R.R. Tolkien used for some of his Middle-Earth writings. (It occurred to me that it's been a while since I had a Tolkien post. How long until December?)

One Caption Site to Rule Them All

You all want to see this: The Lord of the Rings Captions Site. Sample:

Heh heh.

An academic look at Lord of the Rings

And it's a favorable one. It's also rather long and heavily footnoted, so I really don't have time to get into it right now. I will just note a slight misconception on page two of the article, where the author says:

Much has been written about the historicising framework of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and how The Shire in particular is presented as a pre-industrial, agricultural society. Indeed it can almost be termed a pre-modern society, in that Tolkien took some trouble to eradicate anachronistic references to New World vegetables such as tomatoes and potatoes, and especially tobacco--which in the hobbit lexicon becomes pipeweed.

Well, I wouldn't call that "careful eradication" myself -- Sam refers to "taters" constantly, which is a common word both in England and America for potatoes -- and that word is also used. If Tolkien really wanted to make his society historically premodern right down to the food, the vegetable referred to would have been some native Old World root such as turnips, and there would have been no smoking whatsoever of anything, since that was something Europeans did not do until their discovery of the Americas. (When the Native American practice was first observed by Europeans they didn't even know what to call the activity -- it was first referred to as "drinking smoke.") But it's a nitpick.

(Via