Council of Elrond Revisited

Ah, this chapter is SO much more interesting now that I've become acquainted with the characters. When Boromir is first introduced, for example, I could almost hear the foreboding musical background. Especially when he begins expressing doubt about the need to destroy the Ring:


Why do you speak ever of hiding and destroying? Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need?


Also interesting to reread details about the Ring's history. I'm curious about the following:


Then through all the years that followed he traced the Riung; but since that history is elsewhere recounted, even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore, it is not here recalled.


Does this refer to the Silmarillion?

I was also intrigued by the following brief reference to Faramir:


Therefore my brother, seeing how desperate was our need, was eager to heed the dream and seek for Imladris; but since the way was full of doubt and danger, I took the journey upon myself.


Cynic that I am, I have to wonder if Boromir insisted on taking the trip because, as he claims, he wanted his brother to remain safe at home. Or was it for a more selfish reason? Or that he doubted Faramir's ability to do the job right?

And knowing what was still to befall Frodo, his agreement to bear the Ring struck me more deeply than the first time. I felt like yelling, "No! Don't do it! You'll suffer too much!!":


'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'


[Previous entry: "Prologue Revisited (!)"]

Posted by David @ 2001 Jul 13 08:18 PM EST

Well, Ithilien, you beat me. Make that second to comment.

By the way, Ithilien is one of my favorite locales in the entire story. I would love to face the West at Henneth Annun.

Posted by David @ 2001 Jul 13 08:21 PM EST

Yes, yes, yes! The council of Elrond turns out to be not just a history lesson, but an exposition of character, and a foreshadowing of things to come.

Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 13 08:26 PM EST

Debbie: I like the foreboding musical background! This moment of Boromir's is important enough that it's one of the few bits of speech that has made it into the movie trailers.... And I agree that he doubted the ability of Faramir to "do the job right", specifically because he knew their definitions of "right" would likely differ, but I think your "more selfish reason" is closer to the mark: his need for glory and that he couldn't stand to be upstaged by his brother.

Ithilien: Yes! I wondered the same thing about Boromir's supposed dream. In Frodo and Faramir's later elliptical conversion in Henneth Annun, I could imagine Frodo asking "And do I suppose rightly that Boromir only had his dream after you had well-acquainted him with all of the details of your own?", and Faramir replying "Aye, you seem to guess at what I have long suspected, but Boromir was the eldest, and he would have the mastery in this." ;-)

Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 13 11:39 PM EST

One of my favorite parts in this chapter is how Sam attends the council uninvited... :-)

What would have happened if Faramir had gone to Rivendell instead of Borimir? If Faramir had died instead of Borimir defending Merry & Pippin, would Denethor have gone mad in Minas Tirith? Would Borimir have met up with Frodo & Sam in Ithillien and taken the ring?!? Would Eowyn have died in the houses of healing? Don't get me wrong, I *definitely* like how it is better. Just speculating...

BTW, I can't wait for the council of Elrond in the movie. The bits in the trailer look pretty cool!!

Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jul 14 12:59 AM EST

Well, we know E. Gamgee is a Sam fan. ;-)

Hmm, speculations: Assuming Faramir wouldn't have tarried even longer in Lothlorien than the company otherwise did, the big decision at Rauros of which way to turn might have gone differently. Faramir wouldn't have been pushing to go to Minas Tirith, and although Aragorn's private wish was to go there, he wouldn't have let that drive things. Most importantly, the attack that led Frodo to go on alone wouldn't have happened, so my guess is that all eight of them would have intended to go with Frodo to Mordor, and whether they made it or not would have depended on the timing of the Orc attack. They also probably wouldn't have taken Gollum as a guide, so they would have taken a different path to Mordor: probably down the great stair past Amon Hen, then down the Anduin again for a while. Beyond that it becomes more fuzzy....

Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 14 01:07 AM EST

I've always liked "the Council of Elrond". It's a bit of a history lesson, but only such history as is important for the story (in contrast to the prologue.) For me it was the chapter that set all things in the right place.

I never saw Boromir as selfish not letting Faramir going to Minas Tirith. I imagined him as someone who hasn't noticed that the little brother whom he used to protect against everything has grown up and now is an adult man as brave and courageous and valiant as himself - and a bit wiser, but to recognize that Boromir must have had a little wisdom for himself.

Speculations... I'm not sure Faramir would have consented to go to Mordor, as he felt his duties were with his town and his father, but he wouldn't have pressed the others to join him.

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 14 02:43 AM EST

I don't believe it is right to think of Boromir the Brave as a dishonest man. I think he was basically good, but had the fault of pride and of loving weapons more than wisdom. This left him open to the powerful temptation of the Ring. Boromir died a hero's death, repentant at the last. Faramir said of him whose face he saw in the funeral boat, "Of this I am sure: he died well, achieving some good thing. His face was more beautiful even than in life." I can see no reason not to take him at his word at the Council of Elrond: the dream came most often to Faramir, but once to Boromir. It seems then that Faramir was the one chosen by the Valar (the dream proceeds from the West) to make the journey to Rivendell. But perhaps the Powers of the West knew or reasoned that Boromir was in fact more likely to make the trip, and so Boromir also received the dream, as a concession, a sort of “contingency plan.” Faramir certainly would seem to make more sense for the journey to Imladris: Boromir, the man of war at home to defend his homeland already under assault by the Enemy, and Faramir, the man of lore, sent to the House of Elrond to seek council. Anyway, I think the decision was Denethor’s. Who can say what really would have happened if Denethor had chosen Faramir?

Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 14 05:02 AM EST

A note of clarification: I see it says that Boromir took the jouney upon himself, but I imagine him putting himself forward, and then his father making the final decision. That just seems to me the way things would work.

Ithilien: On further consideration I see that you aren't necessarily accusing Boromir of dishonesty. But it seems a possibility you didn't rule out. Anyway, I don't blame you for being a fan of the Prince of Ithilien!

Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 14 05:19 AM EST

Allison: (I posted this on the previous page, not realising you'd moved on.)

Please would I be able to see that H.Potter article too? I have now read all 4 books and I am now nearly as much a fan of the H.Potter books as I am LotR. (Well almost, not quite. :-D) Have you seen the cast list to the movie? I'm looking forward to that as much as FOTR.

You said Debbie was going to read the appendices "some time". Has she not read Aragorn & Arwen's story yet? Please urge her to do so, as she is still missing a big piece of the puzzle if she hasn't.

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 14 07:33 AM EST

Silmarien: I hadn't completely moved on yet- I saw your letter in the other thread. I still read previous lively threads until they stop altogether, there's good discussion over there right now!

Yup, I've seen the cast for the Harry Potter movie and it looks really promising. I've been very impressed with the two trailers, too. I was a little unsure of the idea of Chris Columbus as director at first, but the trailers have made me very hopeful. Looking forward to seeing that movie a lot, though for me this year all roads still lead to December 19th :).

It's just a great time to be a fan of fantasy movies- Tim Burton's "Planet of The Apes" in two weeks (I love Tim Burton), then Harry Potter, Fellowship of The Ring, the second Star Wars movie, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, the third Star Wars movie and who knows what sf/fantasy movie surprises are out there. And somewhere in there Rowling will likely give us the fifth Harry Potter novel :).

Yup, Deb knows about Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices. I think she's been given lots of advice on where to read and when and what order beyond the Grey Havens, etc., etc., but I think it should ultimately be her choice at this point what she wants to read and when. She'll get to it :).

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 08:47 AM EST

I've been over to the Sil Reading Group BB and I'm not sure if I have a problem or not. Is the latest posting really dated the 12th?

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 14 10:00 AM EST

Silmarien: That could have been right- most of the discussion action moved back over here for the last few days in a big way! You can check again now, though. Someone just signed up today for the Sil talks that start tomorrow, so there should be a letter there from the 14th now. Keith from Scotland- cool! Is he our first sign-in from Scotland?

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 10:25 AM EST

Allison: I just checked back and you are right. Now I must go to bed because I just realised its after 3am! :-(

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 14 11:11 AM EST

I have been reading JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century, by T. Shippey, and have just finished his part about this chapter. Reading this part made me realise again just how much of a literary genius Tolkien was. I know many people think this is one of the most boring parts of the book, but to me it's one of the best, sheer genius. If anyone else had written this chapter, it would have seemed like the minutes of a commitee meeting, which in truth it is, but Tolkien uses it instead to describe the characters, not just the main ones, but the lesser ones as well, making them as deep as the main ones. Instead of using more space in the book to describe each of them completly, he uses this chapter, which must be told to us, to build his characters, not just through their actions, but through their different grammatical styles, what words they use, etc. I think that's really amazing.

About the Boromir/Faramir thing. I think that it wasn't just a big brother looking out for the kid brother, it was because Boromir has heard tales of Isildur's Bane, and has guessed it might be something powerful, and that he schemed to get it and use it to save M-e by himself. I suspect the dream was sent to Faramir because he was the wiser of the two, and would know better than to use the Ring, and would probably accept Aragorn's authority better, but Boromir stepped in and put himself forth as the one who should go, and being the favorite, was chosen to go. I can't even imagine what the book would have been like if Faramir had gone. Aragorn probably would have had a harder time of claiming the throne.

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 14 01:52 PM EST

I agree that Boromir would NEVER lie, about whether he saw the dream... A lie-by-omission is the worst he ever came to, I think...

I think that his later actions stop some of you from seeing that he is a hero on his own right who took on himself a very dangerous mission (Tolkien himself later said that he never properly emphasized how dangerous the journey from Gondor to Rivendell that Boromir undertook was)...

As for how things would have gone with Faramir instead of Boromir going... There'd be no attack on Rauros, but the fellowship would still be split, using the suggestion of Aragorn: Frodo,Sam, Gimli and Aragorn himself would use the instruction of Faramir and head southwards to Henneth Annun; so that they could later find a way into Mordor. They might encounter Boromir and his southern rangers there, but Faramir would have given them tokens to show that they are on a mission that must not be hindered or delayed.

The presence of Aragorn and Gimli might prevent Frodo from being poisoned by Shelob and then tortured by the Orcs. He might not suffer so much in the journey.

Faramir, Merry, Pippin and Legolas would start heading for Gondor but they'd encounter Gandalf. Depending on his advice, they might have to solve first the Rohan/Saruman situation before going to Minas Tirith.

Faramir would take in part the role that Aragorn had, but he couldn't go through the Paths-of-the-Dead; yet neither would he use the Palantir to provoke Sauron into an attack, therefore it might not even be needed... Denethor wouldn't fall into the madness caused by the seeming death of both his sons, and thus Gandalf might have managed to prevent the Witch-king from killing Theoden.

And most important of all: Eowyn would have fallen in love with Faramir much sooner, in Edoras... :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris @ 2001 Jul 14 06:40 PM EST

In all these scenarios, I keep thinking about the battle royale Aragorn and Faramir would have had on their hands separating Merry and Pippin from Frodo at Rauros. In the book they seem quite determined to go on with Frodo to Mordor even against Aragorn's wishes until fate plays a hand. They might have been eventually talked into going to Gondor, if they became convinced of the wisdom of keeping the group going to Mordor small, but they sure wouldn't be happy about it.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 07:02 PM EST

Aris: I really like your thoughts on Boromir and Faramir and how the plot would have changed. I think that since Faramir was "meant" to go to Rivendell it is logical to assume that a lot of things would have turned out for the better. I really wonder about one thing though: if Denethor and Boromir hadn't died, would they ever have accepted a Northerner on the throne? Aragorn might have had a much harder time with that. Also, what lie-by-omission are you refering to...do you mean when Boromir came back to the group after his attempt on the Ring?

Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 14 08:39 PM EST

As to "what might have happened" ... This being a work of the author's imagination rather than a history, you can't extrapolate that far ahead. If JRRT had sent Faramir instead, he might have gone in a totally different direction with the Two Towers, even if he arrived at more or less the same place in ROTK.

A frequent criticism of "alternate histories" that are even remotely serious is that the author will change stuff that doesn't follow from the central conceit of the new history. (Eg, if Hitler opens a nightclub and discovers the Beatles, there's no logical reason to recast Stalin as a Hari Krishna.) But for a fictional "history," that's exactly what you should expect -- the author isn't just branching off from known events, he's inventing them as he goes along.

So to say that "Faramir, Merry, Pippin and Legolas would start heading for Gondor but they'd encounter Gandalf" -- not to single you out Aris ;) -- goes beyond speculation. That's more like a Hollywood rewrite.

In other words, you can second-guess history, but don't meddle in the affairs of the creative mind -- you're doomed to get it all wrong.

Does that make any sense...?

Posted by Randall @ 2001 Jul 14 09:51 PM EST

The interesting thing about the "alternative histories" concept is how certain things that seem "fated" in one conception do not work at all in another.

For example, "The Paths of the Dead": this works as the fulfillment of prophecy as the work is written. But if Aragorn had gone to Morder with Frodo, he would not have been in Rohan/Fangorn to receive the words of Galadriel, or to meet up with the Dunedain and so forth. It seems "fated" for him to take this path, and to call on the Oathbreakers.

But it DOESN'T WORK if he's not there. So the whole idea of Faramir going instead of Boromir, causing Aragorn to go to Mordor changes the WHOLE structure of what would follow in a radical way.

Other similar things: Aragorn looking in the Palantir as a challenge to Sauron. Aragorn coming up the river and unveiling the banner from Arwen.

The whole Merry/Pippin thing would change. This might remove the involvement of Treebeard and the Ents. This might result in Rohan losing to Saruman...and so on.

There is something in complexity/chaos theory (a branch of mathematics involving, among other things, non-linear equations which are deterministic yet non-predictable) called "the butterfly effect". The idea is that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon Basin (for example) could change the course of a hurricane from the Gulf of Mexico, say, to the East Coast of the USA: small causes lead to large effects. (The mathematical side of this shows how a tiny cause, like this, can have its effects amplified through positive or negative feedback.)

That phrase "small causes lead to large effects" could be a catch-phrase for LOTR. The Hobbits rise up, etc, shaking the counsels of the wise and powerful. Likewise, contemplating the simple substitution of one man, Faramir, for another, Boromir, shows that this could be true in many other senses.

Posted by brian @ 2001 Jul 15 12:49 AM EST

Well, Randall, we indeed can't second-guess *Tolkien*, the creative mind as you call it... But for this 'what-if' game I tried to treat Lord of the Rings as exactly that, a history: The question I was contemplating wasn't "What would have happened if Tolkien had sent Faramir?" - the question was "What would have happened if *Denethor* had sent Faramir?"... if you understand the difference... :-)

Turumarth: Yes, that was the one I was referring to...

Posted by Aris Katsaris @ 2001 Jul 15 06:34 PM EST

In keeping with the 'what-ifs' about Famamir going to Rivendell instead of Boromir, I agree that Aragorn, Gimli, Frodo and Sam probably would have struck off towards Mordor. However, something that no one seems to have mentioned is that Frodo was not able to destroy the Ring. If Aragorn and Gimli were there, this probably would have prevented Gollum from getting near enough to Frodo to bite off his finger and fall, with it, into the fire. Frodo would therefore have succeeded in claiming the Ring for his own, Sauron would have found him and successfully wrestled the Ring from Frodo, and all would have been lost.

Posted by Amanda @ 2001 Jul 15 10:54 PM EST

Amanda: Good point!

Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jul 16 12:13 AM EST

I had a comment all typed out and lost it, oh well....

Debbie, I love that Quote. It's my all time favorite.

I will take the ring, though I do not know the way.

Since hearing Wood's Frodo voice, I can just hear him saying that.

As for what if's....What if Frodo had left just a bit later and had been caught by a Black Rider in Hobbiton?

A good stroy will always have a cause and effect chain of events that works out in the end.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 16 02:03 AM EST

Amanda: But there'd be several companions around him which would try to prevent him from doing that - Sam alone would probably not manage or have the heart to fight Frodo for the Ring - but wouldn't Gimli or Aragorn (for example) at necessity use force to so prevent him? I don't think they'd remain idle waiting for the Nazgul to arrive and get the ring...

Besides we don't know that they wouldn't have Gollum with them... Gollum's desire for the ring was overpowering...

Posted by Aris Katsaris @ 2001 Jul 16 03:32 AM EST

Brian,

You're right that a small change could "break" the story. I think that even if Tolkien had chosen Faramir for the Fellowship he would have changed his mind -- or changed Faramir. Too much depends on the crisis at Rauros.

I haven't delved deeply enough into the History of Middle Earth to know, but I wonder if Faramir even existed in JRRT's mind before Boromir's funeral boat passed through Ithilien.

I do know from looking back through "The Return of the Shadow" (only volume of HOME I've read) that Boromir appeared long before Tolkien knew he would trigger the breaking of the Fellowship, let alone what would happen in Rohan.

So Aris :) -- you can see that we're looking at the question quite differently. You like to wonder how "history" might have gone differently, while I like to wonder how Tolkien got there in the first place. (And yes, he knew early on that Gollum would be at Mt Doom. ;)

Damn, ROTS ends in Moria. Guess I'd better go order "The Treason of Isengard" now or I'll be lying awake at night for YEARS.

Posted by Randall @ 2001 Jul 16 05:12 AM EST

Ooh! I just saw on Amazon a JRRT quote from "The War of the Ring" (another one of the HOME volumes) about Faramir:

"I am sure I did not invent him, though I like him, but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien."

I guessed right. :)

Man, I am such a geek.

Posted by Randall @ 2001 Jul 16 05:20 AM EST

Debbie wrote:
"When Boromir is first introduced, for example, I could almost hear the foreboding musical background." LOL! That's exactly what I feel! :o))) I LOVE Sean Bean/Boromir in the trailer saying: "The weapon of the Enemy is a gift! Let us use it against him!"

Susanna wrote: "I never saw Boromir as selfish not letting Faramir going to Minas Tirith."
I like that. And I agree with Turumarth's and Talierin's thoughts about that all. And I agree that Boromir was a real hero. He was very honest, IMHO, only not as wise as Faramir.
Well, I like both sons of Denethor a lot :o)))

Amanda: I agree with Aris. Maybe Legolas and Gimli would have been strong enough to push Frodo to the Cracks of Doom... :o)

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 16 05:23 AM EST

If Aragorn, Gimli, Frodo and Sam struck off towards Mordor does anyone think that the Ring would continue to stir up further dissension in the group?
I have read that the dwarves were more resistant to the rings and we know how Sam acted through actually seeing the final outcome of the story. But, I see the Ring causing mayhem along the entire route, maybe creating a further breaking apart of the already broken group. I could see Frodo imagining others wanting to steal it and reacting to that. He was not in his right mind at the end of the journey.

Posted by CJones @ 2001 Jul 16 02:02 PM EST

not to mention the fact that, not only would Gimli and Aragorn have been -much- more noticable (half the advantage the halflings had was in their diminutive size and that natural stealth they had), but Shelob would've torn them apart. It was entirely extraordinary, and no feat that even elvish lords had previously accomplished, for Sam to actually wound Shelob as he did, and that was half ferocity in defending Frodo and half Shelob's own arrogance. neither Aragorn nor Gimli could've done a thing against Shelob, I imagine. And having them along wouldn't have helped against the orcs of Cirith Ungol nor against the roving armies of them Mordor itself.

Posted by Nathan @ 2001 Jul 16 02:47 PM EST

Hey Debbie, could you update the date of when you post the new Frodo comic? June 20th was nearly a month ago.

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 16 05:35 PM EST

It has been suggested that Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn or someone else might have had the strenght to ensure he destruction of the RIng. But I wonder if this is so; they might have the physical strength but would they have the strength of will?

In the new preface the the Silmarillion, Tolkien discusses the Ring's Power:

"There was another weakness: if the One Ring was actually unmade, annihilated, then its power would be dissolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to a vanishing point...Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (EVEN HIS OWN[emphasis added]) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it."

EVEN SAURON COULD NOT *WILL* TO DESTROY THE RING.

Though Sauron made the Ring, and it contained his power; that power, once incarnate in the form of the Ring, was beyond his own strength. This is why Sauron was not content merely for the Ring to exist, and for his power to continue, and not diminish; he had trapped himself with the devouring desire that the Ring places on ANY bearer; he MUST have it. He could not conceive that any other would seek or SUCCEED in destroying it, which he could not do himself.

Posted by brian @ 2001 Jul 16 10:32 PM EST

Here's another one of those issues that has always niggled in the back of my brain through the years as I've been reading LOTR.

I find myself thinking about destiny, specifically Frodo's destiny in LOTR. Actually, I found myself thinking about it while reading and responding to The Sil discussion in our other forum, the destiny of Melkor and all, but some of my thoughts seemed more appropriate to this board, especially since they were initially sparked by Deb's comments above, so I brought them back here instead.

"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."

and late in the book Frodo will say,

"I tried to save The Shire and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."

Both timeless LOTR quotes and they pretty much sum up Frodo's destiny in a nutshell. Frodo's self-sacrifice is one of the most profound and wonderful themes in LOTR. It seems it was always meant to be Frodo's destiny to bear the Ring, suffer terribly and ultimately lose everything he holds dear for the good of Middle-Earth. What troubles me at times, though, is how easily everyone in the book, including Frodo himself, seems to accept that this is indeed Frodo's destiny. Am I the only one who reads that second quote above and always asks, but why Frodo? Frodo's (and Sam's) acceptance of that quote seems a little too easy. If I question it so naturally, why don't any of the characters in the story ever ask that same question? Elrond is the only one who ever seems to come close to questioning this terrible fate Frodo must endure from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time by saying that he would have never laid such a burden on Frodo, though he'll agree the choice is right if Frodo chooses to take it on himself.

Now, I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been Frodo's destiny to be the Ringbearer, clearly it was. It was the hour of the Halflings. Perhaps no one else in the book would have had the clearness of purpose, the determination, the strength, the mercy and the simplicity to have resisted the power of the Ring as long as he did, long enough to complete the quest. I'm also aware that it's the very characteristics that destine Frodo to be the Ringbearer that make me care enough for him to question why he needed be the one to go through that fate in the first place. So even though I think the events of LOTR play out exactly as they should, I still find myself vaguely angry on Frodo's behalf that destiny does call on him to sacrifice everything or, at least, I find myself wishing that characters in the book had questioned his fate more, even if they ultimately accepted it.

I think I just needed -one- scene where Frodo rails against his own fate, or Bilbo has a crisis of the soul at the legacy he's unknowingly left his heir, or Sam, while suffering side by side with his master, ever questioned -why- Frodo has to be the one to go through what he does, or if any of the "great" were haunted by the sacrifice Frodo has to make at the Grey Havens from the events they initially helped set in motion (though, again, I am aware that Frodo's sacrifice is just one of many happening in that last scene). There may be small moments that suggest characters are thinking about this, but never anything specific enough to truly satisfy me.

So, since no one in LOTR asks such questions about destiny, I find they are questions I am destined to continue asking myself.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 17 11:02 AM EST

Well, Allison...
Great questions and thoughts. I don't get the idea though, that anyone, and especially Frodo and the hobbits, had any really clear conception of how things were going to turn out at the end. They set a goal and then they just set out... doing either what seemed best at each turn of the road, or doing what was forced on them.
When Frodo says "I tried to save the Shire... but not for me" at the end, I think he's just realizing that that's what happened, and as he thought about the history of such things, he realized that that's often what happens. But I don't think he had any idea, at the beginning, that it would work out that way. It may have been his fate to do this thing, but in the everyday plodding along of actually doing it, I don't think he thought a lot about his fate. He had set his mind to do a task, and he was going to do his best to do it. No real clear, grand "fate of the world" thoughts. Just "I've got a job to do".
As others have noted, one of the great things about LOTR is that we, the readers, discover the increasing depth and importance of what Frodo and company are doing at the same time as the hobbits are. I don't know if Frodo would have ever set out if he would have truly known everything that was in store for him and his companions. And I'm not even sure that "the wise" had a complete picture. This was, after all, Sauron's Ring, and even though they knew a lot more than Frodo, they didn't know everything. Both Gandalf and Aragorn knew, when they set out, that they would be having to make many decisions along the way, depending on which circumstances presented themselves along the way.

I don't suppose, in all of that rambling, that I actually touched on any of the questions you were asking, but like everything else on these boards, it's fun to ponder...

Posted by Tom @ 2001 Jul 17 12:09 PM EST

Good point Allison,

I think that the other hobbits were wondering why Frodo had to make the choice to leave at the end. They may have wondered alot og things in the time between the war of the Ring and when Frodo leaves but we don't see them much durring that time. When he does leave it's almost a relief for them that Frodo can finally go somewhere to heal his hurts.

Maybe a little off topic from your question but do you get my point? I agree that it would be nice to see more concern from any other characters for Frodo.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 17 06:25 PM EST

Allison: Considering his religious views, I have always thought that Tolkien deliberately made Frodo almost Christ-like. Frodo sacrificed everything on behalf everyone else. In view of what we have been discussing on The Sil, this wouldn't have been out of character.

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 17 11:58 PM EST

Allison: Great post and something thats often concerned me too. I know Frodo went to hell and back (almost literally in terms of LoTR) but I've never understood why he couldn't carry on living in the Shire - surely seeing the good that he helped bring about would have helped him? I agree with Silmarien - perhaps its Tolkien's Catholic roots showing, or alternatively I think it may have something to do with the war - in most (if not all) wars, the soldiers go out without really knowing what they're letting themselves in for. If they knew what was going to happen, surely (given the choice) they would never go. When they return they are often seen as heroes, but conversely are often shunned (US soldiers returning from Vietnam springs to mind immediately). Similarly many soldiers (due to post-traumatic stress syndrome, or "shell shock" as Tolkien would have known it) never get over the horrors they've taken part in or witnessed. I agree though, its really sad what happens to Frodo, although I've always assumed that he does finally find inner peace beyond the Havens. I wonder how the film will portray this? - I just can't see them ending on such a sad note as the Havens (albeit that the final outcome is (hopefully) good for all concerned).

Posted by Andy @ 2001 Jul 18 04:19 AM EST

Allison,
those are very interesting questions you ask, nevertheless I quite agree with Tom. I think Frodo had no idea what his destiny would be. In Mordor he thought he would return to Shire and live there in peace. I like the way Tom wrote it: “ I think he's just realizing that that's what happened, and as he thought about the history of such things, he realized that that's often what happens. But I don't think he had any idea, at the beginning, that it would work out that way.“
I like Big Mike‘s thought that the other hobbits just thought that when Frodo leaves it would just be the only way Frodo finally gets healed. Well, to tell the truth, it was the main reason, wasn‘t it?
By the way, I don‘t think his final departure is -that- sacrifice. IMHO the sacrifice was to accept the quest and the departure was just what came out of it.

Oh, and another thing: I’m not sure what people here imagine when they say “destiny” so I just clarify what I mean. I don’t understand the word “destiny” as to be something really completely predestinate, something that can’t be changed. To me “destiny” is simply what happens (the past and the future). Therefore IMHO people/hobbits are not able to know their own destiny in advance. They can only guess, apprehend, according to what they know and what they’ve learned, or they can choose their own destiny by things they do. There is also an accident or chance that forms your “destiny”. Therefore Frodo could not know what would happen until the Ring have been destroyed (he hadn’t have any previous experience so he had no idea). Only after that he had some inner feelings that there was something wrong - he spoke of the Sea (in Rivendel), his wounds hurt etc. (Some people were able to guess more, for example Arwen. She felt that Frodo would probably desire to go across the Sea years before Frodo realised it.) He chose to leave in the end as he felt it’s the only way for him to be happy.
Maybe someone thinks the same...?:o)

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 18 04:36 AM EST

Andy wrote: “I know Frodo went to hell and back (almost literally in terms of LoTR) but I've never understood why he couldn't carry on living in the Shire.“ That‘s just what I‘ve always thought but there‘s something that helped me to understand when I read the book lately: „On the thirteenth of thatmonth Farmer Cotton found Frodo lying on his bed; he was clutching a whitegem that hung on a chain about his neck and he seemed half in a dream. 'IT IS GONE FOR EVER,' he said, 'AND NOW ALL IS DARK AND EMPTY.' But the fit passed, and when Sam got back on the twenty-fifth, Frodohad recovered, and he said nothing about himself.“
It seems that the absence of the Ring tortured him a lot, especially when his wounds hurt him. I believe he felt there is nothing more in his life to look forward to. His life was EMPTY. Therefore he had to go somewhere where the emptyness would be filled with something positive.

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 18 05:00 AM EST

Katerina,

That's a great passage for this discussion. I would like to see that in the movie to give people and Idea about how Frodo's hurts have not truely healed. I think P.J. could make that scene look really cool.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 18 10:06 AM EST

Debbie,

Just a technical note: The Council of Elrond was Book II (not I as stated on this page & in your index), Chapter II. I note it because Book I Chapter II is a similar sort of chapter with history to it & introduction of characters & plot and perhaps might be another good chapter to review now that you are through with LotR.

Posted by Chipper @ 2001 Jul 18 11:25 AM EST

I agree with Silmarien - Frodo's struggle and sacrifice resembles that of Christ's. It's actually a bit strange that we haven't touched on this resemblance before on this board... When for instance Frodo staggers under the burden of the Ring on his way to Mordor, it's a strong likeness to Christ staggering under the cross.

Frodo's sacrifice consist in loosing the "man" part in him, his ability to a normal, earthly life, and becoming more and more of "god" - that is closer to the elves and the home of the Valar. A sacrifice that saves the world - like Christ's...

It's christian symbolism, but not very obvious. I understand from Tolkien's letters that he intended his story to be deeply christian in morality and essence, without appearing to be so on the surface. He didn't want an obious allegory, he wanted the readers minds to be free when reading LotR.

And our minds certainly are, judging by all the inspired thoughts and insights on this board alone! And still, the emotions and devotion that this book evokes, has a very spiritual flavour to it. Tolkien touches themes that are deeply existential, moral - and also religious. What is he difference between Good and Evil? How can I act righteously and make a difference to humanity - even though I'm small and seemingly insignificant? How can Love conqour Hate, when hate is so much stronger?

Another very christian theme is also very important in LotR: the paradox of man's (hobbit's) free will on one hand and God's plans on the other. The strongest example is that Frodo is somehow selected (by Illuvatar/God) for the mission, but the world then relies on how Frodo uses his free will to make choices and act.

In a christian context, Frodo's sacrifice is very understandable. But I agree with Allison, logically there should have been at least one scene where Frodo tried to renounce his mission - a strong "take this cup away from me"-scene. The closest to this is probably the times when he early on tries to give the ring and the responsibility away to others, like Gandalf and Galadriel.

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jul 18 03:50 PM EST

Katarina, just a note to your comment: the biggest difference between Frodo and Jesus is that Frodo had no idea what would await him whereas Jesus knew exactly - He'd been sent to earth to die. Therefore Jesus' "take this cup away from me" was regarding his future he knew. Frodo did not know what his own "cup" would be like.

But basically I agree with you :o)

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 19 07:48 AM EST

Regarding Frodo's struggles resembling Christ's:

There are two more Christ-like figures in LotR: Aragorn who walks the paths of the dead to save his people & comes out to new life on the other side. Before that he never laid claim to the kingship that was rightfully his.

The other is Gandalf, who did indeed die saving others and was brought back to life in a 'glorified state'.

I find that considering each of these characters helps show Christ's sacrifice & glory in a new light.

That said, LotR is still NOT an allegory.

Posted by Chipper @ 2001 Jul 19 09:14 AM EST

Katerina: Yes, I think that up until the breaking of The Fellowship, Frodo doesn't really realize his "cup". But then he finally understands that he will have to sacrifice himself to save the world, and go on his journey alone. And he would have gone alone, too, had Sam not been so persistent.

Frodo doesn't expect to survive after throwing the ring into the Crack of Doom. But he expects his sacrifice to be his life - not his inner peace and ability to lead a normal life in The Shire. Which I guess is a much more painful loss to him.

So again, Frodo is both alike and not alike Christ.

Frodo's acceptance of his fate makes his character a bit holy and distant on his journey towards Mordor. The story is told instead from the point of view of Sam. Maybe, Allison, that you long for an outburst of protest from Frodo there, because he then would feel a lot more close and "human"? That's the effect that Christ's doubts has on me - I am painfully reminded that he was both 100 percent God AND 100 percent man.

Chipper: those are interesting examples. I had thought of Gandalf before, of course, but not Aragorn. Thanks!

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jul 19 10:38 AM EST

I keep reading these letters and nodding my head and thinking, yes, exactly, you guys are thinking exactly what I'm thinking. Oh, dear, this could get long...

Tom: I agree that Frodo and the hobbits don't really know what they're getting themselves into until they're neck-deep into it and as readers, we don't know, either. That's probably why a lot of the questions I think about above don't tend to haunt me until we get to the Grey Havens, but once we get there, I ask them every time. So, again, I'm realizing the simplest answer as to why characters don't question Frodo's fate in the text might be because by the time all the implications sink in, events are moving too fast and are too inevitable, or, as a writer, there was simply no place for Tolkien to include such soul-searching in the immediate emotion of his ending.

Also, though Frodo might not fully appreciate "giving up The Shire so others may keep it" before he says the words, it's clear other characters are aware that's what Frodo will likely have to sacrifice long before he even begins to experience the darkness and the emptiness after Mount Doom that will finally drive him across the sea- Arwen offering him her place on the ship (as Katerina mentions), Elrond reminding him of their departure in the forest when the leaves are gold. Though thinking about it at this moment, I am struck that it's two Elven characters who know well themselves of the potential sacrifices they must make who are best able to foreshadow Frodo's probable fate.

I agree, too, that Frodo's line about "someone must give them up, lose them, so others may keep them" has very clear Christian parallels, perhaps the clearest in the book, and that that line also reminds me most clearly of Tolkien's war experience, the soldiers that had to sacrifice everything for the sake of those left at home. But, again, it's never been Frodo's sacrifice that I've questioned, Frodo's story plays out as it needs to, I just would have liked to have seen characters question that fate more. I like Katarina's thought that maybe I need that moment of doubt because it would make Frodo less lofty, less "saintly", maybe that's part of what I wanted, but I still would have been just as content if that moment of doubt had come from another character than Frodo. And I agree with Big Mike that perhaps such questions are being asked behind the scenes, I assume Sam, at least, will have to make peace with such questions once back in The Shire since he isn't given the chance to deal with them before Frodo leaves.

Andy: As for the ending of the third movie, I'll prefer if it's left open-ended, Frodo sails away and we aren't ever told what happens to him in the Elven lands (the movie surely will end in The Shire with Sam saying, "Well, I'm back."). It'll be terribly sad, but I like the idea better than the movie giving us assurances for Frodo that we're never given for sure in the book.

The ambiguity at the end of the book is a double-edged sword, leaves those loose ends that we were told a thread back English literature seems to like so well. And I find the very reason I like the ending so much is because it does leave one unsettled, it leaves issues and questions that can never really be resolved and those questions reflect back throughout the rest of the book. I think, too, Deb totally nails one of those common emotions about Frodo above, "No! Don't do it! You'll suffer too much!". Well, exactly. You can't help but start to question Frodo's destiny, because by the second reading of LOTR your every protective instinct is out for him (heck, even the movie trailer brings out those protective instincts). You find yourself looking for those other options that might have spared him and not finding them. You know the book plays out as it must and that Frodo's path in the story is the right one, so it sets up a lot of complex emotions right through to the closing pages of the story. And when you get to the end, Tolkien leaves Frodo's final fate open to interpretation, so there is never any real sense of closure on these issues, they stay with you.

Because I find I very much want to believe the ultimate happy ending to LOTR, that Frodo sails into the West and he will be healed and happy and at peace for the rest of his life. It's comforting and helps make sense of, or at least justify, everything Frodo goes through during his quest and what he must give up and Sam having to lose Frodo, etc.. But the odd thing is that it's the very nature of Tolkien's literature that keeps me from settling easily on the "happily ever after" conclusion for Frodo, the fate of all Tolkien's characters and all Tolkien history tends to blend the sweet with the bitter and is never so cut and dry, so why should Frodo be any exception? There's suggestions in Frodo's destiny of something more ambiguous across the Sea. And once you start thinking that way, then it's easy to start wondering what exactly does happen to Frodo as a mortal hobbit in the Undying Land of the Elves. Should I take it on faith that everything works out perfectly? But that's a whole other discussion for another day :).

And, again, what's interesting to me is that I prefer the idea of unsettling ambiguity at the end of LOTR rather than being assured of a comforting ending. It's what keeps the book vivid for me, keeps me re-interpreting it over time, keeps me asking those questions and returning to the text year after year trying to better understand the answers. I guess, like the British, I like those loose ends :).

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 19 01:46 PM EST

I hope Debbie get to read and post the Aragorn and Arwen part soon. I just found a quote from the good Professor on Tolkein-online

"...I regard Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble."

'hobbito-centric' I love that term.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 19 02:21 PM EST

Big Mike: It's the most important and the most beautiful part of the appendices! The funny thing is: I like the ending, when both have grown old more than the beginning.
(Hope that's not a spoiler.)

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 19 05:04 PM EST

Re: the question of "destiny." In "The Shadow of the Past," Gandalf states very clearly that Bilbo was "meant" to find the Ring, and that Frodo was "meant" to inherit the burden of what to do about it. To which Frodo replies that he does not understand him.

In the beginning of the story, neither Frodo nor any other of the Hobbits seem to have any religious or philosophical "orientation" toward life at all. And one of the processes of growth they all go through is developing just such a world-view through their experiences. Interestingly, Sam seems to arrive at (or be "granted") a sense of his destiny before any of the others. Look at what he says to Frodo after they spend the night with Gildor in the Shire. And again, Frodo doesn't seem to understand at all.

I think the reason we see small protest from the Hobbits about Frodo's sacrifice is because none of them have any idea what it will entail until it is too late. As for the characters who do understand the implications, these are the very ones most likely to see the divine purpose at work, and therefore be most at peace with it's dictates.

There is also the question of "faith:" not in the sense of doctrinal belief, but as trust in the ultimate fairness and justice of Providence. Again, it is Sam who demonstrates this most clearly, in the "star over Mordor" sequence we have spoken about so much. And therefore it makes sense to me that, sad as he is at Frodo's departure for the West, he sees the justice in it quite quickly, and resigns himself to the idea that only in this way will Frodo find peace and a worthy reward for his sacrifice.

Posted by Paul Mendenhall @ 2001 Jul 19 07:49 PM EST

Chipper: You say: "Aragorn who walks the paths of the dead to save his people & comes out to new life on the other side. Before that he never laid claim to the kingship that was rightfully his."

Surely he claimed the kingship at Edoras and when he wrestled with Sauron in looking into the palantir. Afterwards Gimli asks him if he should have done it (used the Stone) and Aragorn says "You forget to whom you speak, did I not openly proclaim my title before the doors of Edoras" and a bit further on "I am the lawful master of the Stone". That was just before he rode to The Paths of the Dead.

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 20 12:10 AM EST

Allison: Would you like to know what Tolkien had in mind for Frodo in the Western Lands across the Sea? He wrote about it in the oh, so quotable letter nr 246:

"Frodo was sent or allowed to pass, over Sea to heal him - if that could be done, *before he died*. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide forever on Earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil."

I like that. It sounds a lot like the "therapeutic treatment" that I wished for Frodo. And now, having read a few chapters in the Silmarillion, I know exactly which ones of the Valar - no, the Valier - I wish to be his "therapists..." ;). But that's an issue for that board.

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jul 20 06:11 AM EST

Boy, do I wish the Letters had a better index!! (librarian fumes with smoke coming out her ears...)Anyone out there know of an online (illegal) version for full-text searching??

Anyway, Tolkien comments in letter 93 that Sam is the more fully drawn character, and Frodo is "not so interesting, because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation." I know there's another quotation somewhere where he discusses Frodo's saintliness. Dratted unhelpful index. Bleah.

Posted by Janet Croft @ 2001 Jul 20 04:31 PM EST

Ask and ye shall be answered! Looks like the 2000 paperback edition has a better index. There goes another $20.00...

Posted by Janet Croft @ 2001 Jul 20 04:36 PM EST

Janet: I have that paperback edition. Great index. Maybe letter nr 181 is the one you're looking for?

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jul 20 05:27 PM EST

I finally got my website up if you want to see it. Just click on my name below.

It has a lot of my Tolkien art on it.

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 22 04:28 PM EST

Btw, I know that the link page isn't working, I haven't finished it!

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 22 08:26 PM EST

Silmarien: you said,
'Surely he claimed the kingship at Edoras and when he wrestled with Sauron in looking into the palantir. Afterwards Gimli asks him if he should have done it (used the Stone) and Aragorn says
"You forget to whom you speak, did I not openly proclaim my title before the doors of Edoras" and a bit further on "I am the lawful master of the Stone". That was just before he rode to The Paths of the Dead.'

Excellent point.
I stated it improperly. Aragorn did make claim to who he was, but didn't ask for his throne or the rule over his people until after he walked the Paths of the Dead.

Posted by Chipper @ 2001 Jul 23 10:06 AM EST

Ref. previous discussion about Harry Potter:

I've just finished HP and the Philosopher's Stone and want to tell you that I just *love* it and I'm looking forward to buy book 2! My favourite characters (besides Harry of course) are the Weasley's twins :o))))))

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 30 05:51 AM EST

I'm midway through HP book 4 and I've just read the chapter on the Quiditch World Cup! I want to play Quiditch for England, where do I sign up?

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jul 30 07:32 AM EST

Katerina and Annatar: Shame on you for talking about such off-topic things! AND I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE HARRY POTTER MOVIE TO ARRIVE!!! And the next book! I finished the fourth one months ago and there is a VOID in my life (which Prof. Tolkien is helping to fill).

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Jul 30 10:12 AM EST

Fred and George are my two faves from HP too! They cracked me up!

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 30 05:05 PM EST

Ron Weasley is my favorite character, but I love the whole Weasley clan. And Harry. And Hermione. And Snape. And Lupin. And Black. And Dumbledore.

Annatar: Have you read the thin green charity book Rowling put out about the history of Quiditch? It's great fun.

I want the fifth Harry Potter book now.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 30 08:05 PM EST

I have just re-read the 4 HP books. I at last have revenge on my sister who 30 odd years ago bullied me into reading LOTR (and thereby started my obsession). I have just done the same thing to her with the HP books. She has been visiting me for the last few days and I insisted she try Harry and she is now too a fan! :-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 31 12:10 AM EST

Allison:
A historical overview of Quiditch through the ages. Sounds interesting, I will have to track that one down.

Posted by Annatar The Fair @ 2001 Jul 31 06:09 AM EST

Quidditch Through the Ages is a lot of fun. There is also a bestiary (the title of which I can't for the moment remember). It's also a hoot, especially Harry's marginal notes. It's the only other book (I think) in the charity series.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Jul 31 09:19 AM EST

My favourite child is Hermione, my favourite grown-up is Lupin. Among all the Hogwarts teachers he's the one I'd choose as a model for being a teacher.

Posted by susanna @ 2001 Jul 31 09:28 AM EST

My favourite child is Hermione, my favourite grown-up is Lupin. Among all the Hogwarts teachers he's the one I'd choose as a model for being a teacher.

Posted by susanna @ 2001 Jul 31 09:28 AM EST

Changing the subject slightly...

Just read this chapter again last night. It's very, very interesting with a read of the Silmarillion under one's belt! Amazing how much depth there is in this chapter!

As I just finished the Hobbit recently, it struck me really funny when Gloin said irately to Legolas that HE had not received such kind treatment under the elves of Mirkwood as Gollum had. Good thing Gandalf was there to cool Gloin's temper! :-)

Is Debbie going to post on the Appendixes??

Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jul 31 01:26 PM EST

Robert: Yup, I enjoyed both of Rowling's thin charity books, they add a fun dimension to her world. The second book is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them". I love, too, that it's designed like a textbook for Harry with pencilled-in notes from Harry, Ron and Hermione in the margins.

Susanna: Lupin is my favorite of the profs, too, though Snape is a tremendously interesting character (doesn't Alan Rickman look great in the trailer??). And I think some actor is going to have a riot in the near future playing the role of Lockhart in the second movie. For some reason I keep picturing Brendan Fraser in that part. He's got the looks and the goofy, clueless charm. He isn't British, though.

Hey, E. Gamgee, you're following exactly the same route through your Tolkien reading that I took. So, now, I think you should read "Unfinished Tales". Start with "The Quest For Erebor" chapter. I read it last night and after having just re-read The Hobbit I found that chapter great fun. And the chapter on the Istari is very cool. And the section on Numenor in the Second Age. Right now I'm reading about the Palantiri.

And, yup, Deb still intends to read the Appendices, she tells me. No timeline, though, her summer schedule is pretty whirlwind, but it'll happen sometime.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 01 12:37 AM EST

Allison: I kept picturing Hugh Grant as Lockhart. My favorite character is Hagrid. I love the way his friendly dog is called Fang but his 3 headed dog is called Fluffy. He reminds me of my father who always finds an excuse for the behaviour of his unruly dog.
"She's only being friendly." he'll say as one of his grandchildren runs away absolutely terrified of a big black barking beardie. He doesn't seem to realise that she is three times the size of the little ones.

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 02 11:21 PM EST

Brendan Fraser is a good choice but I see Lockhart as blond. A blond Brendan Fraser, that could be interesting.

Trying to veer back on topic... Is Deb likely to make an appearance on the Sil forum? We've only just started. All she has to do is read the LotR appendices, then The Hobbit (with ongoing comments, of course), then read all the existing entries in the Sil forum, and she can catch up. She doesn't need to sleep or anything does she?

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 03 06:31 AM EST

What about Matthew McConaughy as Lockhart?
(I hope I've got his name right. I talk about the male principal actor of "Contact" and "Wedding Planner)

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Aug 03 02:25 PM EST

(Responding to the totally off-topic, of course:) I think Troy McClure should play Lockhart. Oh, wait....

Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Aug 05 06:19 PM EST

More Harry Potter, sorry, but I can't help myself :o)

So, I've finished book 3 and that's the last available in Czech at the moment. I don't want to read book 4 in English as my friend wants me to read it at the same time with her (in Czech). So I have to wait until
November, oh, how can I stand the temptation? I'll try.

Susanna:
Yes, Remus Lupin is the best character of adults, I really like him very much! He is very kind and very calm in every situation, very tragic, I would say, but does not seem to be sad.

I like Alan Rickman as Snape although I imagine him less handsome. (Yes, I really think Rickman is a very handsome man :o)
I like the boy performing Harry Potter and Richard Harris as Dumbledore. The film Dursleys are almost exactly as I imagine them! And I love the music from the trailer. Is it going to be in the film too or is it just for the trailer? It sends shivers down my spine! I like the fires and candles hanging in the air above the tables... And flying on the broomstick! Oh, I'm looking forward almost as much as to the LotR!
I've read somewhere that it is almost sure that Hugh Grant is going to perform Lockhart. That's absolutely excellent choice. He can make a really charming but also very stupid expression in his face and it is quite important for performing Lockhart, don't you think? :o))))

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Aug 06 06:50 AM EST

I've been too busy studying every minute detail of news about LotR to notice anything about the Harry Potter casting. Perhaps I should get a slightly larger life.

I think Hugh Grant is too genuinely charming to come across as the cad that Lockhart is. Though he did get his teeth fixed. Yes, Troy McClure would be perf.. almost perfect.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 06 08:49 AM EST

To Robert Jones:

Is somewhere a photo of Troy McClure on the net? I think I don't know him.
Thanks!

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Aug 06 09:00 AM EST

To Robert Jones again:

BTW I’ve seen Hugh Grant performing a real cad. It was a film about theatre (Alan Rickman was in one of the characters). Grant’s character was really nasty. I think he can perform Lockhart closely.
But I believe they will chose a right actor, whomever they chose.

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Aug 06 09:22 AM EST

Katerina: Yes, Lupin's story is tragic, but he doesn't show. Sirius, whose story is tragic as well, gets all attention. I like how Lupin has managed to live with his fate without being bitter. And I like the chapter about the Boggart in the Wardrobe and Lupin's treatment of Neville.

And he, not Harry is the true hero or volume three. There's a list of "underestimated moments in LotR" in one of the fansites. I think the moment when Lupin changes his mind about Sirius is the underestimated moment of HP3.

The site is:
http://fandom.com/ringbearer/Top10.asp?action=page&obj_id=126126

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Aug 06 01:34 PM EST

Sorry: There used to be such a list. I had't visited the site for some months.

Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Aug 06 01:41 PM EST

Allison: It looks as if you should start another thread just for Harry Potter! I think Lupin is a wonderful character. I noted that he was one of the people Dumbledore called for at the end of HP4.

I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT BOOK! HURRY UP J.K.ROWLING!!!
:-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 06 09:05 PM EST

Katerina: Troy McLure is a cartoon character from a TV show called The Simpsons. The character's part on the TV show was part of an actor, but the character no longer appears on the show.

The reason for this is that the Real-Life actor who did the voice of the cartoon character, an actor named Phil Hartmann, was murdered by his wife (who then killed herself) in 1998. Hartmann was a popular and well-loved comic actor in American TV and Cinema. He appeared on SNL, News Radio, The Simpsons and more.

For info in Phil Hartmann:

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/9627/hartman.html

The fictional cartoon persona of Troy McClure was supposedly based on two real-life actors, Troy Donahue and Doug McClure.

For more info on the cartoon character/actore Troy McClure:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6055/

For info on The Simpsons TV show (with additional info on Troy McClure and Phil Hartmann):

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6710/SIMPSONS.HTM

Posted by brian @ 2001 Aug 06 09:42 PM EST

Just saw this link from TORN. It combines both my obsessions:

http://www.yod.net/members/ransom/harrypotter.jpg

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 06 10:17 PM EST

You know, Silmarien, starting a separate forum for Harry Potter isn't a bad idea :). Seems to be a number of people here with enough interest in discussing the books, plus it would mean the possibility of discussing the books without worrying about spoilers or trying the patience of people who come over here looking for -LOTR- posts :). (though I figure until Deb posts again we might as well talk over here about whatever inspires us).

Would there be any interest in having me set up a Rowling/Harry Potter forum over with the other Tolkien topics? Yeah, it's not Tolkien, but it is modern fantasy, and we seem to like it, so what the heck? Let me know. I know I'd have fun talking in such a forum.

By the way, Katerina, I had to do a web search on Troy McLure, too, to figure out who he was. I was rather amused to learn he was an animated character :).

Robert: No, Deb isn't going to read The Sil at this time. She's having trouble finding time to even read the LOTR Appendices! As someone who's known Deb for years, I still find it a wonderful feat that she read LOTR! :)

So, LOTR topics, here's one: John finished LOTR last week (yay!) and he insisted we immediately rent the Bakshi video to watch the weekend, so we did. Neither of us had seen it since the movie first came out years and years back and we were both morbidly curious. Who else out there has seen this movie? We were actually suprised that the first 45 min. or so stay pretty faithful to the story (despite all the stuff cut out), but the second half of the movie is so scattered it's a wonder anyone who hasn't read the books could follow it at all. Though please don't get me started into the characterization... especially Sam and Boromir (yikes).

I must admit the part we found the funniest was a part we -should not- have found the funniest- it was the arrival of the Balrog :D. What -was- that thing? It looked like a cross between a gorilla and a monarch butterfly. By night's end we were referring to it as the "Butter-rog". But all the animated roto-scoping (or whatever it's called) in that movie was horribly distracting, especially set in contrast to the traditionally animated main characters. The scenes in Bree and Helm's Deep were particularly distracting for that.

And now John's searching for "Return of The King" :). He claims to have seen it years ago (and he must have, because he knew from a movie about Frodo and Gollum's showdown on Mount Doom before he even picked up the book), but I've never seen it. I am curious... Being that I know it's a different studio, do they stay with the same character designs as the Bakshi movie?

Lastly, I bought Tolkien's letters today. I am giving Tolkien publishers way too much money this year. Maybe I should go back and re-read my Harry Potter books...

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 06 10:44 PM EST

Allison,
the "Return of the King" video that you are talking about was a production of the Rankin/Bass animaton studio and had no connecton with Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings". Rankin/Bass are the same people that did the animated "Hobbit", so it looks very similar to that.

Posted by Tom @ 2001 Aug 07 09:23 AM EST

Brian, you're a wet blanket. I thought Olórin threw a lovely red herring into the works with Troy McClure and I was just going to let it ride. Ah, well, back to Tolkien...

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 07 10:22 AM EST

Robert: I'm glad Brian explained - those who knew Troy got it, and there was no reason for those who didn't to stay confused for long, unless others were going to pick it up and run with it. I was going to answer Katerina's question myself, but perhaps just with a photo. ;-)

Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Aug 07 11:15 AM EST

And if Olorin or Brian hadn't spilled the beans, I would have, because the name was familiar enough, though I couldn't place it, that I did a web-search on it. I laughed when I figured out who Troy McLure was and figured that maybe "The Simpsons" doesn't play in Sweden, which is why the reference would have to be explained to Katerina.

Though it's also my observation, too, that guys always seem to know more about "The Simpsons" than women do. Get more than two North American guys in any room (I don't know how popular "The Simpsons" is outside North America), baby boom generation or younger, and mention "The Simpsons" and watch the quotes fly. It's scary :). It's like this generation's answer to "The Three Stooges"!

Tom: Obvious question- Does the "Return of the King" movie just cover the action in the third book? So is there action that just falls between the cracks of the Bakshi movie and ROTK like the storming of Isengard and Sam's battle with Shelob?

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 07 11:59 AM EST

Allison,
I am speaking from very hazy memory here, because it has been a long time since I have seen it, but I believe "The Return of the King" gives a bit of a prologue of what has happened before, and then picks up the story with Sam and Frodo shortly after they leave the rest of the fellowship. (so pretty much from Book 4 of "The Two Towers" to the end).
Maybe someone who has seen it more recently than I, can correct me if I am wrong about this, but that's what I think I remember.
I'm pretty sure it was just a "made-for-TV" movie, but I have seen it for rent at Blockbuster Video, so it is available out there.

Posted by Tom @ 2001 Aug 07 02:10 PM EST

Allison: The Simpsons do play in Sweden. I don't no about Czechia (is that how you spell that country in in English?) though... which is the country that KatErina comes from... ;D

Posted by KatArina @ 2001 Aug 07 04:50 PM EST

Oh!! Thanks for clearing that up, Katarina! I've always thought that both you and Katerina lived in Sweden, but I've clearly gotten my wires crossed somewhere along the way. Where do you live, Katerina?

(as Allison gets ready to use her on-line Internet maps again)

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 07 06:34 PM EST

The Bakshi LOTR film has no connection with "The Return of the King." Remember my discussion of the LOTR copyright problems above? I was once told (by whom, I no longer remember) that another odd effect of those various editions is that Bakshi bought the film rights to the revised edition of LOTR while Rankin and Bass bought the rights to the original edition (or vice versa). I don't have a way to assess the truth of that, but it would explain a lot.

By the way, Baksi has said several times that he had planned to finish LOTR in a second film but that studio management changed during the first film to someone who had no clue what the Lord of the Rings was. His funding dried up and he could barely finish even the first film. That's Hollywood. Let's hope it doesn't happen with the current films!

I agree with Allison that the first 45 minutes or so is pretty good and I was very excited at that point. However, you can practically watch the money flowing away from the film every minute thereafter, with a truly ludicrous ending and a horribly inept, cartoony Treebeard. Bakshi never personally or professionally recovered and still sounds like a bitter man in recent interviews. He has probably been unfairly maligned for the poor quality of the film.

Posted by Steve in Indiana @ 2001 Aug 07 08:23 PM EST

Brian, Allison and all:

Aah, a cartoon character! I’d have never thought about that, what a flub! :o))) I know the Simpsons of course but I don’t watch them - they are on TV always at a wrong time for me (in the afternoon when I’m still at work or very late at night). I’ve seen only few episodes. Excuse me then that I didn’t know who Troy McLure was. :o)

Allison + Katarina from Sweden:
I am from the Czech Republic but Czechia could be used too (BTW there are 2 lands forming the republic: Bohemia and Moravia but we all are Czech). For Allison far away across the ocean: it is in the middle of Europe. Will it help you if I tell you that formerly it was the Czechoslovakia?

Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Aug 08 02:37 AM EST

I just watched the Bakshi animated version with a friend (a recent Tolkien convert!) a couple of weeks ago-- I hadn't seen it in a very long time. The Balrog, unfortunately, made us burst out laughing as well. It was terrible! So was Treebeard. And I absolutely HATED how poor old Sam looked. He didn't even have all his teeth! And what was the problem with Aragorn's nose?? Aragorn, however, grew on me despite his appearance, because he acutally DID something. I liked how he had to drag everybody away after Gandalf fell with the Balrog.

The other annoying thing was how the scenes jumped from one to another so quickly with hardly anything inbetween. "How long are we going to be in these marshes, Aragorn?" "Three days." POOF Next scene. And later, "We're going to Lothlorien." POOF "Welcome to Lothlorien." I wasn't too impressed with Galadriel except for the part where she refused the ring. That came off pretty well, I thought.

And Allison is right: the battle scenes were pure torture! And what a weird place to end the movie!

Well, I ordered several items from Newline Cinema (poster, bookmarks, and a Frodo Lives hat), and have been tracking them all week on-line. They've finally made it to Arizona, so maybe they'll come today. I also was pleased to find the student planner (talked about up on TORN) at a local bookstore several weeks ago (which I bought of course). Must get a hold of UT.

Okay, I'm gonna be quiet now! :-)

Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Aug 08 12:38 PM EST

E. Gamgee — Now that you've seen Bakshi again, you can read this review, which is a lot more entertaining than the movie.
http://216.254.0.2/~ohh/bakshi.htm

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Aug 08 01:32 PM EST

Talierin: great review!! LOL :D :D!! I haven't seen the movie since it was first released. And the review convinced me that I don't have to see it again...I agree, this review is probably a lot more entertaining.

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Aug 08 04:28 PM EST

Robert: The people who "got" the joke on Troy McClure were going to chuckle at it anyway.

I would have said nothing, but when Katerina Str asked, I thought it better that we not be laughing at her or others for not being "in the know", rather than at the joke itself. (Perhaps some thought that the idea of the joke was to laugh at other's expense, but I did not.)

Likewise, if someone asked for an explanation for "Melkor Eisner" (from one of my Sil posts) the answer would likely illuminate rather than dim the enjoyment of those who did not "get it" in the first place, without ruining it for those who did.

Posted by brian @ 2001 Aug 08 08:24 PM EST

It is true that the BAshki movie was not very good. But it did have potential. The first half or so did stay true to the book within reason. The rotoscoping was not very good but it was different and unique. Kind of like Tolkien himself, Bashki was giving the impression of scary orcs without giving up too much. The voices in the movie were pretty good, IMHO. I have had sound clips from that movie on my computer for years.

Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Aug 09 10:18 AM EST

The movie is okay, but just okay. The review is better though.
Best parts of the review:
Sauron looks like one of the Knights who say Ni

The Balrog
- It has big red-and-black wings, kind of like a Monarch butterfly.
- It has the head of a big stuffed lion.
- It has big silly-looking feet. In fact, the Balrog is clearly wearing oversized fluffy bedroom-slippers.

I'm laughing even now.

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Aug 09 02:10 PM EST

Talierin: On the Balrog Slippers thing, have a look at this:
http://216.254.0.2/~ohh/slippers.htm

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 09 10:03 PM EST

LOL Silmarien! My one question for Bakshi would be "Why slippers?"

Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Aug 10 10:26 AM EST

Great site, Talierin! I actually saw it several months ago, so I was watching for those things, like Sauraman/Auraman, "Seleborn" instead of "Keleborn", etc. I especially like "milking the giant cow" and how the orcs, Borimir, and Rohan all had the same cheezy horn call!

Big Mike's got a point, though, the voices were pretty good-- except I didn't like Sam's. Poor Sam. I didn't like him in the movie at all! Why did they have to make him so... (to borrow one of Debbie's earlier phrases) "toady"???

Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Aug 10 02:21 PM EST

OK, another LOTR question, since I find myself browsing through the Appendices again. I was going to save this one until Deb gave the "all clear" that she'd read the Appendices, but, heck, it doesn't spoil all that much and it probably doesn't matter all that much at this point.

I'm interested in Merry's family after the events of LOTR. I find it strange that though we are told chapter and verse of Sam and Rose's kids in the Gamgee family tree and we're told clearly in the Took family tree that Pippin marries and has a son there is nothing in the Brandybuck family tree to suggest Merry gets marries or has a family.

I'd conclude from that that Merry never does get married, except for this statement at the end of Appendix B- "(Meriadoc) took counsel with his friend the Thain, and soon after they handed over their goods and offices to their sons and rode away over the Sarn Ford...".

Hmmm... Which strongly suggests that Merry does have at least one son, since "their sons" is plural and the Took family tree says that Pippin had just one son. So, what's the story with the Master of Buckland? Who does he marry and is it ever referenced anywhere? Am I just missing some obvious statement here or is it simply a loose end?

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 10 04:05 PM EST

Allison: How Victorian! :-D You're right. I can't find any mention of Merry marrying either. However, this of course, doesn't mean he didn't have sons. This is a whole new line of interest, a new statistical study, the illegitimacy rate of The Shire! :-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 10 07:34 PM EST

(posting from my parent's computer in Hamilton..)

Silmarien: (drily) Yeah, it had occurred to me, too, that Merry might have really lived up to that playboy reputation in The Shire, but it -is- Tolkien we're talking about here so I figured Merry having a son probably meant having a wife, too :). Could be quite the scandal for the Master of Buckland to have little illegimate Brandybucks running around...

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 11 01:04 AM EST

Talierin: Thanks for the Bakshi link. It was a lot of fun. It brought all the horror back to me. (To be honest, I enjoyed the movie when I saw it, but I was young and foolish then, and if one is avid for anything Tolkien, one puts up with whatever one gets.)

Brian: Point taken. Pax! My comments were intended to be light-hearted. I'm sorry if you thought I was being critical of you. I assure you I have no desire to laugh at other people's expense. Well, most people.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 13 09:50 AM EST

Allison: I just bought "The Tolkien Comapanion" by J.E.A.Tyler and according to this book Merry married Estella Bolger.

It doesn't say where this fact is recorded but does add that "..although no children are recorded for them in available genealogical tables, on the basis of the penultimate entry in Appendix B, one must assume that Merry had at least one son,...".

Maybe we owe Merry an apology? :-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 20 09:15 PM EST

Silmarien: I've seen Estella Bolger referenced as Merry's wife in a couple of places on the web, too (the Merry profile over at TORN, for example, though that profile says Merry has no kids, which goes against what Appendix B says, so that confused me further), but what I'm curious to know is how official that is and does Tolkien himself reference Estella Bolger as Merry's wife anywhere? I've always -assumed- Merry had a wife if he has a son, it's just always struck me as odd there's no reference to it on the Brandybuck family tree in Appendix C when we do get reference to Pippin and Sam's wife and kids on their family trees.

*movie spoiler*

Speaking of which, even though it's not correct in the book or the timeline, I like the scene in the new Hobbiton video where Frodo pushes Sam into dancing with Rosie at the birthday party. It's cute. I guess I'm OK with them establishing right from the start of the trilogy that there's sparks between Sam and Rosie. It works as part of the emotional arc of the quest.

*movie spoilers off*

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 21 01:43 AM EST

The name of Estella Bolger (Fredegar's sister) was added to the Took and Brandybuck family trees by Tolkien for a revised edition in 1966. However, this addition didn't find its way into most editions of the text. I think it has been incorporated into the most recent editions - at least into the seven-volume edition that I possess.

Posted by Giirov @ 2001 Aug 21 03:02 PM EST

Giirov: Interesting! Thanks for the info.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 21 10:23 PM EST

I am writing merely to stop this page from stalling. I hope Deb will be back soon with the appendices. I hope Allison has told her how much of a Tolkien geek she (Allison) has become. I hope December 19 is not as far away as it feels.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 29 11:33 AM EST

I'm glad someone else besides me is still checking this page. It had stalled for so long I thought I was the only one. Allison is not the only one who has become a Tolkien geek. I think I too could happily call myself that. :-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 29 07:35 PM EST

Silmarien: Oh, I still tend to check this board at least once a day or so, even though more of my attention goes to The Sil boards now. If someone starts a discussion here I'm ready to jump in :).

Robert: Deb's just left for three weeks in Japan, so it'll be at least mid-September before you see any new Tolkien stuff from her here. You can follow her trip on her "Blatherings" diary which is in a forum on the Penguin board under The Sil forum.

And Deb's thought I was a Tolkien geek ever since early in our friendship when I could happily quote poetry for her from LOTR and I expressed horror that she lost interest in her first reading of LOTR 2/3's of the way through (how could one get that far and then lose interest??). Yup, she knows that I've kept Toronto bookstores in business this summer buying Tolkien and she's even expressed an interest in reading "Unfinished Tales". I told her she might be wise to read The Hobbit and The Sil first so she knows the stories the unfinished tales are written about :).

And Dec. 19 is still way, way too far away, but we should be getting a new trailer in the next few weeks, right? Nice new FOTR movie poster up on the official page today, too.

I was getting my classroom ready for "Back To School" this week when I came across a very cool treasure in a box I hadn't gone through in several years. It's a tape recording of JRR Tolkien reading excerpts from Two Towers and Return of The King. I didn't even remember I had it! I immediately popped it into the tape recorder and there was Tolkien reading Boromir's Lament and songs of The Ents and Galadriel's Elven farewell (from FOTR) and scenes with Sam and Gollum. Haven't listened to the ROTK side yet, but I'm thrilled to have found it.

I'll be attending a sf convention next spring where the writer guest of honour will be Guy Gavriel Kay, so today I went out and bought his Fionavar Tapestry to read. Has anyone read this series? I notice from my web surfing that critics seem to compare it to LOTR fairly regularly, which I figure can be both a good thing and a bad thing, rather like the latest hot rock group being compared to The Beatles.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 Aug 29 10:02 PM EST

Off to Japan? She's only just got back from (wherever it was). Deb's a busy person! I'm glad she found time to create this discussion. September, eh? I suppose we'll have to wait till then before the next instalment of Waiting for Frodo, too.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 30 10:17 AM EST

Silmarien: It's a wonderful thing to see people converted to the faith of Ilúvatar. You know you'll have to get an anorak now, don't you?

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 30 10:23 AM EST

Hey, I think I'm turning into a geek to! If you measure the level of geekdom by amount of Tolkien books, this summer I guess I have earned the title. I had to rearrange my bookshelves completely...

An anorak? Oh. Must I? Wouldn't that look strange on a 44 year old rather overweight Swedish woman??? ;)

Allison: I liked that poster too.:) AND the interview with Viggo Mortensen. Such an interesting person! And it doesn't harm that he's good looking too.;) I'm more and more confident about him as Aragorn.

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Aug 30 06:34 PM EST

Robert Jones: I already HAVE an anorak! :-D (I still have my duffle-coat as well. My Geekhood goes way, way back.)

Katarina: I don't know about a 44 year old Swedish woman but it definitely looks strange on a very overweight 51 year old NZ woman. :-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Aug 30 09:57 PM EST

An anorak can never make a person look odd. It's the anorak itself that looks odd. A duffle coat, on the other hand...

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Aug 31 07:49 AM EST

Robert Jones: Forgive me my duffle coat. I had it back in the days of The Great Protests: equality for women, abortion rights, anti-Vietnam. It's just as well that I have outgrown those, because I sure have grown out of that old coat. It would truly look odd now - I doubt that I could put it on! :-D

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Sep 01 05:41 AM EST

What's that? What have anoraks to do with Tolkien? (Though I like them. On a bike they are more practical than coats.)

Posted by susanna @ 2001 Sep 01 04:35 PM EST

That's a good question, Susanna. Would you like the five-minute answer or the full half-hour?

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Sep 02 08:53 AM EST

the half-hour answer

Posted by susanna @ 2001 Sep 02 04:09 PM EST

The half-hour answer

Posted by susanna @ 2001 Sep 02 04:10 PM EST

I'd like to listen in on the half-hour answer too, please! :)

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Sep 02 06:08 PM EST

Anoraks are not a symbol of Tolkien but a Badge of Geekdom. I believe, (although I'm probably wrong and will welcome any contradiction), it started in Britain with the train-spotters who all tended to wear anoraks. It became a term to describe anyone with an enthusiasm (obsession?) for something slightly offbeat. In other words nerds or geeks could also be called anoraks. (Duffle coats were a much earlier version.)

Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Sep 03 05:04 PM EST

Re anoraks: Silmarien's answer pretty well sums it up. I would have said bird-spotting.

But imagine, if you will, a lonely but contented person who is happy to stand for hours on end in the cold, wet English outdoors, waiting to glimpse a bird, or a train, or perhaps a UFO.

This person is a devoted enthusiast and is quite unable to conduct a conversation on anything other than the object of his enthusiasm (this person is usually male).

This person is looked upon by his (or sometimes her) peers as slightly subnormal and incredibly dull. And this person invariably wears an anorak.

Well, that's the kind of stereotype from which clichés are made. You can probably add thick-lensed glasses, a bad haircut and a runny nose. And a few people probably fit all these descriptions. At any rate, enough people fit one or two of the criteria that they can all be pigeon-holed (and derided) together.

And so by the popular grace of metonomy we call them what they tend to wear.

"Nerd" and "geek" are reasonable synonyms, but "anorak" is particularly British and I think the runny nose is important.

I'm sorry if that wasn't half an hour. I'll post a refund, unless you'd prefer to argue about it.

Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Sep 12 09:04 AM EST

That's rather the five-minutes-explanation than the half-an-hour-explanation! But I think it's good enough. Thank you.

As you will see, we have changed the schedule of the Silmarillion Discussion Board back to one chapter a week. I hope that will allow you to join us again. I'm looking forward to your posts - though of course nobody feels very much like discussing the Sil at the moment. We are waiting for news of the American members of the board.

Posted by susanna @ 2001 Sep 12 11:24 AM EST