I'm sorry, but "Cracks of Doom" is a pretty funny name for a place, don't you think? I can't picture anyone saying this phrase with a straight face. I certainly hope they don't use this name in the movie!
I wonder where Gandalf is off to? You'd think with the Ring (I guess I'd better capitalize the word since that's the way they're referring to it now) being so important, Gandalf would make it a priority to protect Frodo and his cargo. Also, had to cringe at Gandalf warning Frodo one last time NOT use the Ring. Surely Gandalf should know that this is the best way to guarantee that Frodo -will- use the Ring at some point. That's one of the cardinal rules of fairy tales and mythical legends, after all -- the best way to prod a Hero into doing something is to tell him or her NOT to do it.
But I digress.
I'm wondering a bit about Sam now. He seems a bit grovelling and toady around Frodo; I hope he gets some more backbone eventually.
Pretty scary scenes with the Dark Rider starting to get closer to Frodo! And I wonder what it means that Frodo gets an overwhelming desire to put on the Ring when he thinks he might be discovered? I wonder if this would be a good or bad thing? I'm assuming very bad, since Gandalf told him NOT to do it.
I'm still somewhat confused about whether the Ring is inherently good or evil. Almost every indication is that it's evil, yet it has managed to find its way to Frodo, whose goal is to destroy it.
And what's with the hobbits' tendency to break into song at the drop of a hat, completely forgetting about the bad guys looking for Frodo?
Yay, first mention of Elves! Their food sounds yummy and very magical. I wonder what kind of effect it will have on the hobbit party when they wake up in the next chapter?
So that's where it came from.
Replies: 27 comments
Sam rocks. Just trust me on this one.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 May 03 07:09 PM EST
How about the Sam equivalent character in "Bored of the Rings" by the Harvard Lampoon?
Posted by Teddy @ 2001 May 04 07:06 AM EST
Haven't read it. Don't know. (not a great fan of those kind of parodies) But Sam is my favorite character in LOTR. Granted, I tend to have a weakness for unassuming, but ultimately surprising, sidekick types :). Spock, Skywise, BJ Hunnicutt, Ron Weasley, Dr. Watson, etc.... Sam rocks.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 May 04 09:29 AM EST
My favorite character in Bored of the Rings was the Thesaurus. ;)
Debbie - if it was simple, and all the answers were given to you in the first 4 chapters, there'd hardly be a need to write three books, eh? (grin) Hang in there -- and GO with it. If you're going to buy any of it, you might as well buy it all... ;)
Posted by Scott @ 2001 May 04 12:36 PM EST
Debbie,
If you had seen the quote about wizards before in Babylon 5, then trust me, you will see lots more LOTR parallels and references in B5 by the time you've read the entire trilogy. I won't go into more if it now, because I don't want to spoil the book for you, but there's lots there....
Posted by Jeff Bohnhoff @ 2001 May 05 11:13 AM EST
Hey, I should read "Bored of the Rings" after this, just for comparison. Have you all read this? To Jeff: Unfortunately I'm not familiar with B5. :-( I am still hoping to find a friend who will lend me the first season...
Posted by Debbie @ 2001 May 07 10:57 PM EST
Debbie,
I happen to have all of B5 on VHS. If you're interested, I could arrange to get them to you....
In B5, there is a group of characters known as "Technomages" who have scientific powers so advanced that they appear to be magic. Michael Ansara plays one these named "Elric" (really), and he uses Gandalf's quote about meddling in the affairs of wizards. There are literally dozens of much more fundamental parallels between LOTR and B5, but that one just floored me the first time I saw it.
Posted by Jeff Bohnhoff @ 2001 May 09 06:25 PM EST
Hey, Jeff, if you manage to send B5 tapes up to Debbie I would love to borrow them, too, while they're in the Toronto area and before they get shipped back to you. I've always wanted to see B5 all the way through, too.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 May 10 10:30 PM EST
Allison,
That's fine with me. Why don't you email me, and we can work out the details.....
Posted by Jeff Bohnhoff @ 2001 May 11 12:17 PM EST
Debbie:
Re: the "Cracks of Doom", I know what you mean. However, keep in mind that this is not, as such, the official name of this place as it would be found on a map. This is merely the name given the molten bowels of 'Orodruin' (which is the mountain located in Mordor that houses the "Cracks") by "the good guys" in the story.
Also, keep in mind that the history of the 'ring' goes back thousands of years before this story begins and at least one great battle for it was already fought during the previous age (the 2nd Age) of Middle Earth. With that in mind, why should it be strange that the free peoples should give the name 'Orodruin' (or "Mount Doom") to the very place in which the ring was originally forged?
When reading LOTR, you've got to keep "the bigger picture" in mind always and trust that any and all background needed to keep things "real" will be provided over the course of the narrative. Trust the Good Professor and keep reading. You'll be glad you did!
Posted by Ken @ 2001 May 16 12:56 PM EST
Tolkien wrote with upper and lower classes in mind. Therefore, Frodo was upper class and Sam was lower class. Sam goes as Frodo's servant (kind of like a butler). That's why Sam acts so subservient.
Posted by Juleen @ 2001 May 16 02:58 PM EST
Jeff, I would love to borrow those B5 tapes! I want to read "Bored of the Rings", too, just out of curiosity. Ken, thanks for the advice about the prehistory narrative. I'm posting this while in Book III, and am realizing that I might actually be interested in some of that Prologue stuff now. I'll probably go back and read it after I've finished the whole thing. In fact, I've already decided to read The Hobbit and The Silmarillion as well. I read The Hobbit when I was very young, but confess I don't remember any of it.
Posted by Debbie @ 2001 May 24 09:06 AM EST
Thanks for the info about the class info, Juleen. Tho I notice that Sam is certainly exhibiting a lot more independence and spunk in later chapters, so he's not nearly as subservient as I originally thought.
Posted by Debbie @ 2001 May 24 09:07 AM EST
Debbie, Read all books you have listed many times with the exception of Silmarillion. Never thought about the ties between B5 and LOTR, but now I may have to watch all my VHS again and try to find the references.. I do know the one listed above, but didn't realize it at the time... interesting... As far as Bored of the Rings... I've read it once , and just picked it up to read it again. After that I may apply the chapter a day of the Silmarriolion and see if I can get through it...
Posted by Bob @ 2001 May 31 11:17 PM EST
For those people before they get angry, I apologize for mis-spelling Sillmarillion, see I probably mis-spelled it again....
Posted by Bob @ 2001 May 31 11:18 PM EST
I have no problem with "Cracks of Doom". Remember this is like a written history, but the people will use local colloquillisms (sp?) when referring to places. I could probably think of some goofy sounding placenames in the real world if it wasn't 2 am!
Does anyone out there think that the name "Orodruin" means "Destruction" (ruin) of Gold (Oro)?
Rchris
Posted by RChris @ 2001 Jun 01 04:04 AM EST
Bob,
You spelled Silmarillion right the first time. If you hadn't apologized for your mis-spelling of it you wouldn't have.
Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 Jun 01 12:59 PM EST
SAM ROCKS!
Does any1 know were i can find the bored of the rings? i think my school used 2 have it, but then, they most likely tossed it in the trash 'cause it was so beat up before i got there.
i REALLY need 2 reread the fellowship of the ring (but then, i probably need 2 get my own copy 2.
did anyone realise that the insripsion at the bottom of the authorized edition of LOTR says "Da lord ov da rins"? my friend and i decoded it on the school bus. by the way, in case anyone is wondering, i'm only in the 7th grade, OK.
yes i know i talk 2 much, so now i will shutup
Posted by vikki @ 2001 Jun 13 03:30 PM EST
The runes are some what phonetic and not alway true corresponding letters. Though at times they do correspond directly. So the translation is actually by sound value not literal(though uncompleatable as the second rune in the word 'the' in both cases does not exist in the chart) dh? lord ov dh? rhns(it is an h not an i, the i has two dots above it, one in direct line and the other to the right of the first dot and the n is actualy a merged n and j, the second leg of the n forming a lowercase j with out a dot.) All this proves is the aritist didn't pay attention when he decided to use the runes. Supposing 'dh'stands for the hard 'th' and 'th' for the soft it would be correct. The second rune in 'the' should have been number 48 the short a sound. In the word 'ring' the 'i' should have been 39 and not the unnumbered one second to last. For the 'ng' sound 33 or 37 should have been used.
Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 Jun 13 05:19 PM EST
The references in Babylon 5 are not a coincidence. Michael J. Straczinski (sp?), the creative genius behind B5 is a big LOTR fan. He also included references to a wide assortment of other things, as he had 5 years worth of story to do so. If you are interested in B5, I recomend the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 website, it's very through.
Posted by Louis Ransdell @ 2001 Jun 14 08:15 PM EST
Jnae, your analysis of the runes is correct in some respects, but you are misled on a couple of points. (At least, based on the inscription in the edition I have. Yours may be different.) The inscription in mine clearly shows the second letter in "rings" being rune 39. The 2 dots you see on the table of Cirth are NOT part of the rune. They are separators for related classes of runes according to phonetic relationships. If you look at the table of Cirth you can see that the 2 dots appear at (somewhat uneven) intervals when a group of related phonemes is complete, according to the original values assigned to the Cirth. (Though some of the later groupings are not as consistent, and represent historical mutations and deviations within the historical context of Middle-Earth). All of Tolkien's written symbols, Cirth as well as Tengwar, are grouped in a similar, though not necessarily identical, manner.
(The Tengwa make distinctions between voiced and voiceless stops in their groupings, for example, while Cirth do not.)
For example, 1 thru 7 are a group, followed by 2 dots. This group represents sounds produced by the lips (alone or in combination with the upper teeth) p, b, f, v, hw, m, (mh)mb. The next group 8 thru 12, followed by 2 dots represent sounds produced by the tongue against the front of the hard palate and upper front teeth: t, d, th, dh, n. And so forth, 13-17 (air forced thru upper and lower teeth and tongue, ch, j, sh, zh, nj - z), 18-22 (rear of tongue against rear of hard palate, k, (hard) g, kh, gh, (n+j) - n), 23-28 etc, 29-33, 34-38, 39-52, 53-56, 57-58. The point is that the two dots you mention are not part of Cirth 39 any more than the dots above 8 are part of 8, or the dots above 13 are part of 13 etc. The Cirth used in the inscription is in fact 39 and represents "i".
In addition, Tolkien explains in the beginning of Appendix E that "dh" is in fact sounded as the "voiced th" sound. (And he used this convention when transcribing many names of peoples and places. Think about this when pronouncing "Caradhras".) It is the fault of English orthography that we do not have a separate symbol or symbol combination for these sounds. The (almost) unvoiced "e" in "the" uses Cirth 55 which is a "halved" version of 46 as explained at the end of Appendix E.
A similar thing applies to the use of Cirth 22 for "ng" in "rings". The (n+j) combination is used to phonetically represent the nasal "n" as in "king", "ring" or "skunk". ("N" in English, followed by "G" or "K" almost universally is pronounced this way, except when the syllable is split between these phonemes, which is rare.) As mentioned above, this nasal sound (n+j) is produced with the rear of the tongue against the rear of the hard palate, and is a distinct phoneme from "n" as in "nice" which is produced with the tip of the tongue behind the upper teeth against the front of the hard palate. Unfortunately, English speaking people who are not familiar with phonology rarely realise this distinction, even more rarely than the difference between voiced and unvoiced "th". Tolkien certainly was aware of the distinction, and since the spelling is phonetic, rather than a transliteration from English, the choice to use Cirth 22 for this sound was correct.
The absence of "g" following is a little unusual, but the nasal phoneme represented by Cirth 22 (n+j) is almost always followed phonetically by either a hard "g" or "k", and it might be assumed to be "g" according to the orthographic conventions being followed.
I hope I didn't sound TOO serious through this explanation. My apologies if I overdid it.
Posted by brian @ 2001 Jun 22 02:45 AM EST
Thank you for the lesson. I complete missed the fact that the dots were not part of runes. It since dots appear, however, in the inscription on the book covers, the artist also thought They were part of them.
Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 Jun 22 09:39 AM EST
Thank you for the lesson. I complete forgot the fact that the dots were not part of the runes. Since dots appear, however, in the inscription on the book covers, the artist also thought they were part of them.
Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 Jun 22 09:41 AM EST
i have no clue what brian and j'nea said(or U other guys 4 that matter). i'm just a kid! simpler phases, smaller words
Posted by vikki @ 2001 Jun 27 01:03 PM EST
Vikki,
Sorry for all the big words. I will try to explain some of them in case you should return to read this:
You had written in an earlier post -- 'did anyone realise that the insripsion at the bottom of the authorized edition of LOTR says "Da lord ov da rins"? my friend and i decoded it on the school bus.'
-----------------------------------
J'nae and I were trying to tell you a better way to read the inscription.
We used the term "phonetic" spelling.
What this means is spelling something according to *how it sounds*, not according to the *messed up rules and exceptions* in "normal" English spelling.
For example, "of" is written "ov" because that is how it sounds.
Other big words:
Phoneme - a unit of sound that is separately identifiable from other sounds.
In a perfect world, each letter world represent a phoneme. But in English this is not the case.
For example, take the letter "k" and think about how it sounds. Then think about the letter "c": sometimes it sounds like "k" and sometimes is sounds like "s". We don't really need "c". We could spell "cat" as "kat" and "circle" as "sirkle" but we are used to our way of spelling things.
Just as some letters, like "c", are not needed, we are missing some letters for sounds. Sometimes we put two or more letters together to make a sound. Or sometimes we use the same letter for two sounds.
For example, "sh" as in "ship". We have no single letter for the "sh" sound.
Other examples, "ch" in "church"
Other ways we put 2 letters together are more complicated.
For example, "th" is used for two different sounds, and a lot of people never even 'think' about 'this'.
"Th" in "think" sounds one way.
"Th" in "this" sounds different.
These two ways of speaking "th" are related to each other in the same way the sounds for "f" and "v"
are related. Say them out loud if it helps.
Some letters, like "n", are used to represent two different sounds and almost no one even realizes that they are not the same sound.
"N" in "nice" is one sound.
"N" in "Ring" is different.
You have to listen carefully because most English-speaking people have never given this any thought. Listen and pay attention to the position of your tongue when you say the two words, and try to see what "nice" would sound like with the "n" sound from "Ring" at the beginning. (Most people do not even realize that "n" is used for two different sounds, because they are related.)
The letter "g" has a similar problem, though most people are aware of these:
"G" as in "giant" (sounds like 'j')
"G" as in "good" ('hard' g, not like 'j')
"G" as in "beige" (no separate letter for this sound in English)
"G" as in "Ring" (closely related to the hard "g" sound, but it is absorbed or included in the "n" nasal sound explained above and not always separately pronounced, but present only as a modifier to "n".)
(There are also other places where "g" is used, as in "laugh" but the four instances above are the dominant sounds associated with "g".)
Vowel sounds have similar problems which I will not detail here.
This is why you thought it said "Da lord ov Da rins"
For example, "Da" for "the" is not correct. The Rune used is not "D", but a Rune which sounds like "Th" in "this", and which is written as "dh" in the Rune table in the back of the book. This is how Tolkien told the difference between the "th" sound in "this" and the "th" sound in "thin". He used "dh" for the sound in "this" or "the" so people would know which sound he meant.
Other things, such as "rins" for "rings", are easy mistakes to make because the English alphabet doesn't have a separate letter for the two different sounds that "n" is used for. But Tolkien did create a separate Rune for the "ng" sound combination (this is the one is translated to a "letter" that looks kind of like an "n" with a "j" superimposed on it. Don't ask me why, this is just the symbol that people who study sounds and their representation (phoneticists?) use to represent this sound.)
Other big words:
Orthography - a system of writing. One system is the English alphabet, and the rules for spelling and punctuation that we use. Other systems are the Runes of Tolkien, or Egyptian hieroglyphs (symbols found in the tombs of Egypt).
Orthographic - of or relating to a system of writing.
Transcribing -- copying text from one place to another, or from one system of writing to another. When a text is 'transcribed', the person writing may make alterations to make it easier for themselves of for other people who will read it. (For instance, if your teacher writes something on the blackboard and you copy it into your notebook, that is transcribing. Sometimes, you will make abbreviations or additions to make it easier to read, or to correct spelling mistakes.)
Transliteration -- a method of transcribing in which no changes, (or as few changes as possible are made) except to substitute the letters and symbols from a different system of writing. Even spelling mistakes are copied in this case, the spelling mistakes will just be in a different alphabet now. (This is like doing a "cut and paste" on the computer and then changing the font so it looks different.)
What you and you friend tried to do was "transliterate" the Runes into English letters. But you did not realize that the spelling was "phonetic", so that you should have "transcribed" the Runes and made the appropriate substitutions when the "phonemes" used were different than the ones normally used in English "orthography".
----------------------------------
I hoped this helped. Do not worry so much about not understanding big words. As you said, you are only in seventh grade, and it may be enough that you are attempting to read the Runes at all!
Brian
P.S.
A lot of the understanding of sounds and how they are used in words was put into a system by the Brothers Grimm, who are most famous for their collections of fairy tales like "Cinderella" and "Snow White". They collected the Fairy Tales as part of their attempt to explore language and sound and the way they changed over time. This is a field of study called "Philology".
Tolkien was also a philologist. He was very interested in languages and sounds. Unlike the Brothers Grimm he *invented* a "fairy tale" world in which to place his linguistic adventures. So it is not surprising that he paid so much attention to these details.
Posted by brian @ 2001 Jun 28 10:51 PM EST
Yes, Sam does seem a bit grovelly at first. Guess I should have put my post for the previous chapter here instead. Allison's right--Sam rocks, you just have to wait for it a bit.
B5 and LOTR--goodness, yes. No spoilers, but here's a good one: Za'ha'dum is a--whatchamacallit--rearranged Kha'Za'Dum (a.k.a. Moira) (did I spell any of those right?!) Oh, and Rangers, and Rangers (Marcus, though the wrong type to be a Strider, would fit right in LOTR).
Posted by constance @ 2001 Jul 02 10:33 AM EST
As you find out in later chapters Gandalf does not realize how close the danger is yet and he (as we learn in Rivendell) cannot keep his promise to guard Frodo. For those who have read The Hobbit first this event is most distressing before (and after) we learn the cause for his delay.
Posted by GEM @ 2001 Jul 05 02:22 AM EST
