It is in relation to TrackerOrc's character, not their argument. Rather than proving the argument wrong (only in this particular statement of course, not in the rest), it is pointing out the fact that TrackerOrc "overlooks anomalies in the films" instead of addressing the subject.Huh? 🤨 How is that ad hominem?
No. Again, it's an observation regarding TO's willingness to overlook discrepancies in the films but not in the book. TO even makes a statement in support of this in this very thread. It has nothing to do with TO's character. But if I have unintentionally offended, I apologize.It is in relation to TrackerOrc's character, not their argument. Rather than proving the argument wrong (only in this particular statement of course, not in the rest), it is pointing out the fact that TrackerOrc "overlooks anomalies in the films" instead of addressing the subject.
Probably for the best.Of course, I'm not trying to be involved too much here, so now I shall going to go back to watching silently in the shadows.
Yeah, I tend to forgive a lot of discrepancies. He was tasked with something he initially had no real interest in writing. The initial interest I think came from the flattery of being asked to write anything, and later to weave the story into his legendarium.I agree we should try to keep to the subject of the thread, and not get it tangled up with the films, an entirely different can of worms.
I'll add something to the actual subject: his disorganization, which for example led to misplacing the description of the doors at Meduseld.
I can't blame him too much, given the task, but still.
I guess I shall disappoint by returning once more....No. Again, it's an observation regarding TO's willingness to overlook discrepancies in the films but not in the book. TO even makes a statement in support of this in this very thread. It has nothing to do with TO's character. But if I have unintentionally offended, I apologize.
Probably for the best.
Couldn't agree more!And I'd suggest to all that repeating the same points over and over -- even with small adjustments -- doesn't tend to encourage people to follow a thread.😉
Yeah, I'm sure he saw certain things he wished he could have done over. On the other hand, sometimes you just have to "stick a fork" in something, especially when you've been working on it for over a decade.In the Foreword to LOTRs Tolkien talks a little (though mostly evasively) about what Tolkien did wrong in the story...
'The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.'
As for me, I think it was a mistake (if only in the appendices) to allow Gimli and Sam to sail into the West. One exception to the rule for Frodo is perfect. As much as the exceptional friendship of Sam and Frodo is central to the story, I'd have to think that Sam's connection to his children would be just as strong. Yet, he chooses to leave them forever.
Also, IMO, the larger story is served best if Elrond's ship is truly the last ship to take the Straight Road. I like the way the end of the era is handled in the final words of the Silmarillion:
''White was that ship [the last ship] ... and an end was come for the Eldar of story and of song.'
Isn't it the job of the ruler of the domain to keep the place spick and span and so on? If he can't control one old tree then yes, I'd definitely question his competence; or perhaps competence is the wrong word. I'd say imbalance - as noted later by you - his aeons long existence paired up with what we know that he actually does (pick flowers for his wife basically) is completely out of kilter. Why hasn't he got a presence in the Appendices to flesh out his backstory, like so many of the other characters? Why doesn't he help the Shire when they endure the Long Winter or Saruman's 'invasion'? An immensely long presence and a tiny amount of action equals imbalance.Competent? At what? Saving the odd unwary traveler? Like that's his job or something? 🤨
I stand corrected. Evidently, no hobbit ever went as deep into the Forest as our heroic quartet do.
As I said, perhaps 'disparity' is a better word. Or 'anomaly'. His skin-changing ability does not fit within the legendarium. I have never seen any books written about Tom Bombadil, though.
Are we really second-guessing Tolkien? How would you have handled this particular juncture in the story? I'm honestly curious to know. Would you have just eliminated him altogether, as well as the Barrow-downs, as Peej did and Ralph Bakshi before him?
So, it's okay for one medium to do something but not okay for another. Seems to me like an arbitrary line to draw.
That's not really related to the point I was making.
I eagerly await the first such volume, and your explanation regarding this supposed "imbalance". Overall, I think you're overthinking Tom.
Couple of things to add here.Let's just keep our discussions civil.
And I'd suggest to all that repeating the same points over and over -- even with small adjustments -- doesn't tend to encourage people to follow a thread.😉
Except Tom saves the Hobbits from the Barrow-wights. To have Frodo defeat the Wights by himself would stretch credibility.
To be fair, the Red Book was in another language so he probably had trouble translating it and staying organized (which he was not). I doubt he could find any hobbits about that would meet with him to help or that even could help.I agree we should try to keep to the subject of the thread, and not get it tangled up with the films, an entirely different can of worms.
I'll add something to the actual subject: his disorganization, which for example led to misplacing the description of the doors at Meduseld.
I can't blame him too much, given the task, but still.
Ah I've been informed of that (or is it this) in another thread.If there's something I personally feel Tolkien did "wrong" in his stories - its his burdening of the text with the word "that". Both the "unnecessary 'that'" - a useless and meaningless space holder - and the "proper 'that.'" Both can be done entirely without, in writing and in speech, by simple alteration.
Yet even this is not 'wrong'. it was during his time, and remains today, a pervasive affliction for which people are constantly forgiven without a thought.
Somewhat like 'sniffing' or an involuntary 'tic' or some other 'small' malady, it is simply overlooked by most in spite of how much it degrades the delivery of the scene.
(Similar to the overused, unobserved "passive 'and'" and the insane use of "um" or "uh" in speaking. It just 'is', without value or purpose.)
As I think I've posted elsewhere, you could have had Strider defeat the Wight - what an entrance this would be!Except Tom saves the Hobbits from the Barrow-wights. To have Frodo defeat the Wights by himself would stretch credibility.
The Red Book was in another language? You are talking about The Red Book of Westmarch, right?To be fair, the Red Book was in another language so he probably had trouble translating it and staying organized (which he was not). I doubt he could find any hobbits about that would meet with him to help or that even could help.
They say history is written by the winners; no wonder poor old Gollum gets such a bad press! I can just see Gamgee crossing out all the good stuff he did...The Red Book was in another language? You are talking about The Red Book of Westmarch, right?
I thought Bilbo authored the first part of the Red Book, Frodo wrote about the War of Ring, and then Sam added some supplemental info.
And I thought it was written in Common Speech (Westron).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?