LOTR Thought

[Telaldalin]

Ok, here's the deal: one of my friends is a LOTR freak; she could tell you everything you ever wanted to know about it. today she told me she had this thought and wanted to hear the opinions of others on it. the problem is that it relates to the plot of LOTR and i've never read LOTR before. so, i told her to send me her thought via email and i could post it here since she isn't allowed on forums and quite a few of you are as interested in LOTR as she is. the next problem, though, is that her email is probably over a typed page. should i break up her email or just post it all together, even though it is insanely long?

[Kathy Li]

Errr, how about formatting it into HTML, sticking it up as a webpage somewhere, and linking to it? (otoh, I think it's probably ok to stick in an insanely long post. Just try and format it so that we don't get weird linebreaks or something, making it even longer.

[Telaldalin]

Ok. this is my friend's email to all of you:

I had a very interesting thought about the plot of LOTR the other day, and I really needed to tell people about it. So my friend Telaldalin has agreed to post this for me, as I am not a member of your forums. I hope you enjoy it, or it at least gets you thinking.
Okay, well, basically, the plot of a book is, in essence, the reason that the reader is reading the book. (Yes, I know that the plot is also the actions that the characters do, but for the sake of my thought, we will define it as the reason the reader is reading the book.) It is what you are trying to find out, so to speak. Now, conventional wisdom would tell you that what you are trying to find out when reading The Lord of the Rings is whether or not the Ring gets destroyed. But I don't think that's right. I mean, think about it... as soon as you find out what the story is about, you know the Ring has to be destroyed. No one would spend over a decade writing a huge book in which the bad guys win, and the world is forever corrupted. And even if they did, there is no way that such a book could ever become such a classic. It just doesn't work that way. So that leaves us with the question: what is the plot of LOTR?
To answer this, we must first look at another aspect of the story: the effect of the Ring on Frodo. Think about it. In FOTR, Chp. 2, A Shadow from the Past, Gandalf and Frodo are talking about the Ring. To find out if the Ring possessed by Frodo truly is the One Ring, Gandalf needs to test it. The best way to test it is to heat it up. So, Gandalf tells Frodo to toss it into the fireplace. Frodo tries, but finds he cannot bring himself to do it and places the Ring back into his pocket. Now consider: even at the very beginning, Frodo cannot willingly harm the Ring. He simply cannot. So, if, at the beginning, he can't even throw it into the fireplace, how in Middle-earth would he be able to throw it into a volcano after traveling with it for almost a year? He couldn't. And as the story progresses, we begin to see that it's true. It becomes especially evident in the latter part of ROTK, when Frodo gets angry at Sam for even suggesting that he give it to him. Actually, there is one quote which is most especially relevant, "It is too late now, Sam dear. You can't help me in that way again. I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad." (Emphasis added.) This quote is found on page 229 of the Ballantine Books paperback edition of ROTK. It tells us, especially the italicized portion, that Frodo simply cannot destroy the Ring. And that is where the conflict comes in.
Combining what we know, we realize that the Ring must be destroyed, but that Frodo, the one appointed to destroy it, cannot fulfill his duty. And, because this is somewhat evident from the very beginning, it sets the tone for the whole book. This, then, is our answer. The plot, or the reason for reading, LOTR is to find out not if, but how the Ring is destroyed! And it is this, along with excellent characters, places, etc., that makes LOTR such a wonderful read. Because the plot is so unique, and the true conflict is both obvious and hidden. Which brings me, then to the movies...
I am of the opinion that the movies, if they were not based on any book, would be the best movies ever. However, they are based on a book. A book which I love, as do millions of others. And, in my opinion, because of this, and because I read the book first, I cannot stand the movies. The final one actually made me nauseous, it was so off from the books. (And I mean "off" in the worst possible way.) I realize that there are many who disagree with me, and that's fine. Honestly, I would rather watch the LOTR movies than a lot of the trash that passes for entertainment these days. But I digress. I have, in my thoughts and ramblings, come to a conclusion about the movies. The reason that they differred so much form the books is simple: Peter Jackson and the screenwriters confused the "obvious" plot with the actual plot! If you think about it in this way, then many of the changes they made make perfect sense! Take for instance the incident with Faramir. In the book, Faramir does not in any way attempt to sieze the Ring from Frodo. Now this works because we now know that the plot is not if but how. We know that the Ring will be destroyed, but not how. So Faramir not really interfering with the mission is acceptable. However, for the movie-makers who believed the plot to be "if," having Faramir attempt to take the Ring would make perfect sense to further this plot. It adds a sense of uncertainty, a "will-the-Ring-make-it-to-Mount-Doom-and-be-destroyed" type feeling. And you know what, that would work. Except. Except that that is not what we are trying to find out as we read the book or watch the movie, because we already know that the Ring must be destroyed! We can pretty much apply this logic to all of the changes that were made to specific points in the storyline, but that would take way too long. So all I ask is that you think about it. To me, this makes perfect sense, although I understand that this may not agree with everyone.
Well, that was the really interesting thought I had. I hope you thought it was interesting too, and that it shed some light on LOTR for you.
~Mirelena

[papercrane]

Yes...but...pretty graphics! Like Hidalgo! But longer, with orcs and Lothlorien!
...
anyway...
I do see your friend's point, but one could interpret the 'plot' of the book in any number of ways. In other words, to me it seemed that Peter Jackson simply chose one angle--and personally, I feel he didn't disregard Frodo's character development etc. at all--and played it up well.

[Birdhead]

Huh. That was really interesting.

*mutters* I still love the books and the movies, though, and I'm with Amber; there's more to the books than the plot, for a start (though I really take her pint about Faramir) and moreover I appreciate the movies as movies, rather than as adaptations of the book. But i would at to that that, in terms of adaptations of the book, they were very faithful perhaps not to the plot but I think to the spirit and history of Middle Earth- another reason, I feel, that people loves these books: they love the fully realised world that Tolkien's got, they love the details of description and character. Even books with no plot at all, or a familiar, recycled plot are attractive; plot is not the only reason people read, or read books.

That was totally incoherent, but I'm excusing myself: I wrote, hmmm *counts* seven essays in the past three days- three in English, two in History, and two in french- and my coherency's right out the window.

[alla]

*prepares herself for bashing* I think that .... <span class="ev_code_WHITE">the movies were better in a way...</span>. Ok, I agree that the books are classic, but after having watched the movies, (besides that I've read the books a million times [slight exaggeration, but close enough]) I don't really have the patience to read the books again. They are good and will always be classic. Some things about the movies annoyed me (no tom bombadil, no bath song and _slight_ character changes, and a couple of major ones), but overall i thought they were good...

Before I forget:

Happy Birthday Ella!!!

[db_pr]

Umm, ok. I'm also a LOTR freak and I like the movies, but I really, really doubt that the WHOLE plot is the effect of Frodo and the Ring. I think that something like that couldn't even be a plot since it isn't complete. Though it is true what you say about being the "must destroy the ring" thing being obvious, think about it. All plots in the world are mostly ovbious. I mean, take the Young Wizards series for example, you know that Nita and Kit have gotta beat the Lone Power, but DD, instead of making the books last by making the Lone Power harder to kill (like Harry Potter) she became with a very creative idea of the Lone Power having many forms and to the plot of them beating Lone power and slowing entropy, she added many ideas and interesting little things that make the books what they are. That's exactly what Tolkien did with his very obvious 'destroy the ring' plot. He added emotional and just plain cool stuff to the books. The wars, Denethor's madness, and on top of all that, Frodo's emotional battle. But that is not the main plot, even though it is one of the large pieces that make up the plot.

If you study closely many other books, you'll see that almost every book is that way. And that at least one of the things that MAKE the plot are almost always an emotional battle the protagonist has with himself.

[Cress]

I don't really feel like people read classics for the plot. If you're reading books for fun, (or if you're a shallow reader), then that's all you can get into. But what makes a book a classic is the themes that are within it. The comments and ideas about human nature. I suppose the most driving of them within LOTR would be that power corrupts. There's also themes about transience and about friendship. However I think Tolkien was a lunatic and did not care much about plots or themes and preferred to create world and languages, because if you look at his writing, that's what he focuses on. The plots and characters and ideas are really only vehicles to allow him to talk about this mythology that he's created for Britain, this idea of a place that is something more than our world but still connected to it. He spent most of his time creating histories and peoples to populate his world. Maybe it's just me, but I think Tolkien didn't even really want to write a book. He wanted to create a world.

I also believe that the most poignant stories are the ones we already know the ending to. Take Shakespeare's tradegies for instance. In most cases you know the hero is going to die at the end of the play, but the question is not what happens but how it happens. The interest of plots is the developement of people and the way people interact with the story you already know will happen.

[Vyrt]

I absolutely love LOTR. I try to read it at least once a year (okay some years I don't) but I also feel that the films were a magnificent attempt to film the unfilmable.
Firstly while I agree that the plot is partly about how rather than will the ring be destroyed it is also about friendship. True friendship. Frodo and Sam. Legolas and Gimli. The characters develop beautifully as the story goes along. Professor Tolkien spent so long refining the story and getting it perfect.
Peter Jackson had the unenviable task of taking all that and fitting it into a cohesive and enthralling trilogy of films. I have to say I think he did a magnificent job of it.
As a member of the Tolkien Society I have spoken to quite a few people from all ove rthe world about the films and I can honestly say that only a small percentage (working it out I think it's about 2% of the people I have spoken to) did not enjoy the films.
In some ways I think Peter Jackson enhanced the film. I know I was on the edge of my seat going through the Mines of Moria. My girlfriend turned to me about a third of the way through the first film and said 'I know we haven't seen the whole film yet, but I want to see it again. She is more of a Tolkien nut than I am (she read the whole trilogy in a weekend) so this was high praise indeed.
I think one little niggle for me was the fact that the Elves had pointed ears. Tolkien always stated that Elves do not have pointed ears. There is just something about them that sets them apart from humans.
I have the extended versions in my DVD collection and relish the idea of taking about ten hours out of my life every now and again to watch them.
Sorry if I've gone on a bit but please before you put the films down consider what they would have been like if Disney had managed to get a hold of them. They tried to get the rights when Tolkien was alive and he turned them down. He even stated that when he died under no circumstances was his family to allow them anywhere near the books.
Sorry for rambling on so.