Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Before, it seemed to me that they were all simple folk. Minding their own business, never looking for trouble, and tending to their gardens. Now they return with a renewed confidence, able to lead the rest of the Hobbits in an attack of the ruffians. Its interesting to me that none of the other Hobbits (at least up until this point) have noticed or commented on the changes in the Hobbit's personality.
Its also interesting that Rosie commented to Sam that Frodo may be in much danger and Sam should not leave him alone. I liked that Sam found humor in that, as he and Frodo had been through so much together already.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
We mentioned in class that Aragorn was biding his time, but my question is why Aragorn. Gondor has been kingless for some time now, and apparently the king has been around. Aragorn is proof at least for that. Aragorn’s daddy and his daddy and his daddy all should have been king. Even without the sword being “remade” those people were still descendents and rightful heirs. Plus if the fixing the sword is such a big deal, you would think that it wouldn’t have been too much trouble to be like, “Hey Elrond, want to do me a favor?” I’m just saying that waiting for the world to come to an end or “biding time” doesn’t really sound like all that great and noble.
This brings up a couple of questions. If you look at it that way, is Aragorn still the same type of hero? Was he really trying to be King the whole time and accepting the responsibility, or is he hiding from his nobility and responsibility? (Like his ancestors must have done)
Hope this helps.
The readings for today from the Pros Eda made reference to apples. The Gods would eat them when they started to get old to regain their youth. This reminded me of Adam and Eve and the apple. The difference would be that Adam and Eve were told not to eat from that tree because they would die. When they did eat the apple they gained knowledge only god had.
I also saw many references to olive branches in Song of Roland and they are supposed to represent peace. In the story of Noah and the Arc it is part of an olive branch that is brought back when the flood is over, signaling peace!
I have found many many more. I deffinitely would like to do some more research in this area.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Also Hrothgar's wife would not sleep with him, because he had touched "her". I took this to mean Grendal's mother. When Beowolf killed Grendal, Hrothgar seemed to be relieved on many levels. It was as if someone had cleaned up his mess and his contious had been cleared.
Later it was implied that Beowolf slept with Grendal's mother to give her a child to replace the one that he had killed. I got the impression that Beowolf succame to temptation in the same way that Hrothgar had, therefore coming full circle. Now there was a Dragon, hence Beowolf's son.
I have never seen a movie ADD themes that did not appear in the story. I actually thought the themes in the movie were better. I will have to go back and reread Beowolf and compare the two.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
I don't think we discussed in class the role the mead played in this whole thing. The poem eludes to the fact that the mead may have actually been the poison that lead to the deaths of many of the warriors.
"Because of wine-feast and mead-feast they charged, men famed in fighting, heedless of life."
"Men went to Catraeth, mead-nourished band"
"Pale mead their portion, it was poison"
"For a feast of mead they gave their lives,"
These are just a few of the lines taken from "Y Gododdin" that mention mead.
I am curious how others interpret the role/purpose of the drinking of the mead.
Was it the mead that gave them the courage to go fight so bravely? Or did the mead cause them to be really stupid in taking on so many soldiers? And why in the world would they drink and party for a whole year before getting down to business.
Was this a lord/thane thing, where they were being buttered up (so to speak) so they would owe allegiance. If they drank this stuff everyday for a year, I wounder how their health, strength and mental health were when they went into battle
Monday, April 7, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
On page 18, Gandalf says he doesn't know why Pippin chose to do what he did, but he did it with good intentions, and it honored Denethor. So Gandalf says that he must remember what he has chosen. In your opinion then, do you think Gandalf was proud of Pippin, does he think he shouldn't have made a vow to Denethor, or does it not matter one way or the other?
We further discussed the elves being angelic figures and orcs are elves fallen from grace; they may not want to be associated with Sauron but nonetheless follow him because there isn't anything better to do and what other races want to be associated with orcs.
I was wondering if my colleagues found any other connections that can be drawn between the two texts. I also was hoping for Dr. Joy's input on the idea of Tolkien drawing on a lot of ideas from Milton's work.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
"We wants it. But--" and here there was a long pause, as if a new thought had wakened. "Not yet, eh? Perhaps not. She might help. She might, yes."
"No, no! Not that way!" wailed Smeagol.
Could "that way" be the secret passageway that leads to Shelob's lair? Gollum/Smeagol sure is quick to offer another path once they reach the gate, and he even mentions that they would have to find another route to Sam before they realized they couldn't pass through the gates - granted smeagol/gollum muttered it under his breath. If that's true, then Gollum was planning on going against Smeagol's promise to Frodo anyway.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
On Wednesday, we ended class discussing pre-destination vs. free will in Middle Earth. We compared characters and talked about how the idea of a "pair" is prevalent throughout these works, ie: Frodo/Sam, Merry/Pippin, Gimli/Legolas, etc. In doing this we came across characters whose pairing made for a stark contrast that reflected more than mutual companionship or brotherhood, ie: Faramir/Boromir, Gandalf/Saruman. With these latter examples, both Gandalf and Faramir are depictions of what the other individual in the relationship could have or should have been--Saruman the White, Boromir being the older brother. Of all the pairings of Middle Earth that we came up, it seems odd to me that Sauron is left out of this common trend. Who could he be paired with? He is this seemingly intangible being (so he's an eye, but that's not the point here) of evil who has no one to answer to, no conflicting power. I feel like his presence in the novel would warrant some type of opposing force equally as powerful, great, and intangible. And if Sauron did have an anti-thesis to his character, maybe this being, entity, idea, or whatever would be just as powerful and capable as Sauron, but still subject to the free will that (seemingly) governs the rest of Middle Earth. But then maybe not? Just a thought.
ps My friend dressed up as the Eye of Sauron for halloween.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
I've always been a big fan of Sam and I think that he, not Frodo, is the true ring bearer. And if you think about it, he's the only one who is there by choice.
At the Council of Elrond there was all that pressure upon Frodo to take the ring, silent pressure though it was. So he submitted to it and agreed to take the ring. Sam chose to go along with Frodo without any outside pressure. Only his own sense of right and wrong.
When meeting Galadriel Frodo again tried to give the ring away, was refused and so continued on his quest. Sam saw alarming visions in the mirror, was ready to leave and then chose to stay of his own accord, to see things through.
To me he seems to be the only character who has complete freedom of choice.
What do you think?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The importance of this theme is such that when people and/or kingdoms are involved, they act as one. This is parallel to the idea of God as three persons, but one being. In the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien seems to be putting forth the notion that something whole can still be one even if it has distinguishable parts with distinct functions. The parts or "persons" still are there to function for the existence of each other, which ultimately comprise the one. In a sense Tolkien is conveying that God is a relational being, in that His internal relationship should be the basis for how we should treat one another. The relationship between Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli is that of working together in harmony and creating a sense of interconnectedness in order to achieve the same collective goal. Intuitively, they can only do this if they act as one unit. Gandalf seems to be the only character who brings an "awakening" light to a couple of the triune groups such as Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, and Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard. This can be an allusion to how Christ brought the reality of the Trinity to humankind through his death and resurrection.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Two Towers, p. 151: "Before the wall's foot the dead and broken were piled like shingle in a storm; ever higher rose the hideous mounds..."
and on p. 199: "At the rim of the shattered bowl there lay vast mounds and slopes, like the shingles cast up by a great storm..."
Friday, February 29, 2008
While we are at it, how old do you think Aragorn is? The books talk about things that he done 38 years ago. Is Aragorn 50 plus years old when all of this is taking place? This reminds me of Beowulf fighting a dragon at age 70. Aragorn could be 70 too. How long exactly does a Numenorian live?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
It seems that the orcs are physical representations of evil and chaos. Sauron himself seems to resemble satin or god of evil on (middle)earth with the power "see" and bring all that is evil together. Even the “sinful” men try to come to his aid for example Boromir. The orcs of Mordor are his minions/ death bringers; they will not turn on their master because he is the only reason for their existence; the only one that can give them propose. Without Sauron the orcs would not have common goal and thus would turn on themselves.
One the other hand you have Saruman and the uruk-hai who seem to represent the evils on an industrious world and the faceless army of a dictator. To me Saruman himself could represent Hitler or any of the WWII dictators of Tolkien's time. He is someone with a sliver tough and who is able to gain influence and bend the will others with the power just of his speech. Moreover he cares not for the world he lives but seeks to destroy it in oder to bring it into the future to and create his own ideal utopia just as Hitler and his allies attempted to do in second world war. Like Hitler he obsessed with perfection.
Hobbit socks so that you too can have furry feet:
Socks knit with Tolkien's runes integrated into the stitches themselves:(They say "The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again)
Adorable crocheted hobbits:
A scarf designed with the One Ring's inscription:
And the white tree of Gondor:
I'm always interested to see what sort of a lasting affect that the written word can have on people. It shows the adaptability of the stories and the characters that they can be taken from paper not only to screen, but also into other forms. Like yarn.
- Kelly Huber
Friday, February 22, 2008
Also, it seems to me that after Frodo meets and leaves Goldberry his character is more mature. It was mentioned during class once that there are no romantic interests in the books, but to me Frodo acted like he had a crush on Goldberry. Was this so or was Frodo acting like a knight who showed courtly love for Goldberry?
Another thing that I wondered about is the constant use of the word queer to describe something odd. Why doesn't Tolkien use synonyms instead of using a single word over and over?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Later it is revealed that they are half-breeds. A mixture of men and orcs. (I swear I read that somewhere but now I can't find the quote to save my life...)
In a land where each race is isolated from the other, either through distance or ancient feuds, could it be that the mixing of blood is what makes the Uruk-Hai so great a threat to Middle Earth?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
When Gandalf 'dies' in the previous book, it seems to me that none of the fellowship spends much time thinking about him, or mourning him, or whatever they would normally do in that culture.
I know they don't necessarily have time to stop their mission, but it seems to me that Gandalf played such an important role in the whole journey. Once he was gone, it was mentioned that they missed him, but it seems like they go on with their business without much thought. I felt that Gandalf was not only their leader, but their close friend. Especially from Frodo's point of view. Thats why I wonder why it seems like none of them have much to say about his death. Any thoughts?
The question I pose to everyone is this, are Boromir's actions at Amon Hen enough to gain his honor back after he tried to take the ring? Or is he destined to be remembered as a "betrayer" and "backstabber"?
I believe this does redeem his actions with Frodo. I mean granted he shouldn't have tried to take the ring, but, he was only doing so because he though it would help his people in the coming war. Is it so wrong for him to do so? And can anyone really be blamed for giving into the power of the ring? He must have realized the error of his ways because he gave his life in an attempt to save other fellowship members and maintain his honor.
What does everyone else think?
If one looks at the matter with the opinion that Gandalf represents the father of the Balrog, one could argue that the Balrog is a character foil for Gandalf, who represents fire and good (light). The Balrog represents fire and evil, or shadow (the opposite of good/light). This puts the two and an equal standing on the basis of sharing "fire" and an opposite standing on the basis of good/evil or light/shadow.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Also on page 370, Gandalf says that he is the wielder of the flame of Anor. What is this? Is this his Elven ring of fire? If not, does anyone know the name of the ring? I haven't read the third book yet.
Friday, February 15, 2008
I am sorry to come late to the conversation that developed in response to Joe Donaldson's post "Is Sauron the Good Guy?" [I am currently at Wake Forest University where I have been guest-teaching on, you guessed it, Beowulf], but I just wanted to say that the level of intellectual conversation here is very, very rich and I am really impressed with all of this commentary on a very difficult question: the nature of evil, goodness, whether or not absolute morality exists, etc. I think Mike Pilato does an excellent job of summing up the different threads of the conversation here and also raising the interesting idea of a pluralistic objective morality, which is not the same thing as an absolutist ethics in which there is always one perfect answer to any ethical dilemma [i.e. God is always right, read the Bible, read the Constitution, read the law codes, do unto others, thou shalt not kill or steal, an eye for an eye, etc.]. Although I would point out that even the Council of Elrond represents different, interested [i.e. subjectively invested in the outcome] parties who, for one reason or other, all come to agree on the importance of destroying the ring--they are a kind of precursor to something like the United Nations [although I'm not sure the U.N. has ever effected a real and lasting peace or helped to avoid disastrous military conflicts, which was one of the intentions behind its foundation: in other words, the U.N. has not triumphed over evil, but then again, although the Fellowship will manage to destroy the ring, that does not mean evil has been eradicated from the world, only that a temporary stay against the wholesale destruction of the world has been effected].
Rocky's point that history is always written by the victors is very apt here, too [and also a famous sentiment echoed by many historians and philosophers over the years], and it connects in certain interesting ways to the idea that one actually can get away with murder sometimes. I want to share with everyone here some dialogue from Woody Allen's film, Crimes and Misdemeanors, during a Seder dinner [a Jewish holiday devoted to the Passover], in which family relatives [one of whom is a rabbi] are arguing over the same provocative moral questions you are all raising here. I will first provide the plot set-up and then the dialogue:
Woody Allen's film, Crimes & Misdemeanors is a kind of creative adaptation of Dostoevky's Russian novel Crime and Punishment. Judah (played by Martin Landau), the sixty-something successful and married opthamologist has been suffering various attacks of his conscience over the fact that he hired a hit man to kill his lover (played by Anjelica Huston), because he didn't want her to expose their affair (which she was threatening to do), and therefore ruin his life and marriage. Repeatedly, throughout the film, he claims he doesn't believe in God, and he doesn't think it's fair that, for one brief adulterous affair, his life should be ruined. How is it justice (?), he wonders, to be destroyed by a "neurotic" woman. He feels he has no choice but to get rid of the girlfriend. He has a patient, a rabbi (played by Sam Waterston), who appears in a dream sequence just as Judah is getting ready to make the phone call to arrange the murder, and says to him, "Don't you think God sees?" To which Judah replies, "God is a luxury I can't afford." The rabbi replies, "Without the law, it's all darkness." Nevertheless, after the girlfriend is killed, he finds he can't sleep at night, and he is convinced he will be caught and punished for what he did. One afternoon, he drives to the house in Brooklyn where he grew up, and as he is wandering through the rooms, he sees himself as a young man and his large extended family having Passover supper in the dining room, and he listens in on the conversation. Saul, his father (a rabbi) is praying and his sister, May (Judah's aunt), interrupts to say, "hurry up, enough of the mumbo jumbo, we're hungry":
Saul: I apologize for my disrespectful sister.
May: This is the twentieth century, you have young boys sitting here. Don't fill their heads with superstitions.
Saul: Oh, the intellectual, the schoolteacher--spare us your Leninist philosophy just this once!
May: Are you afraid if you don't follow the rules God's going to punish you?
Saul: He won't punish me, May. He punishes the wicked.
May: Oh, who, like Hitler?
Saul: May, how can you say that?
May: Six million Jews burned to death and they got away with it!
Saul: How did they get away with it?
May: Ah, come on, Saul, open your eyes! Six million Jews, and millions of others, and they got off with nothing!
Relative 1: How could human beings do such a thing?
May: Because might makes right. That is, until the Americans marched in and stopped the--
Saul: (interrupting) I don't like this kind of talk at my Seder.
May: Okay, okay, all right! You know, wait a minute, there's this joke about the prize fighter who enters the ring, and his brother turns to the family priest and says, father, pray for him. And the priest said, I will, but if he can punch, it'll help.
Relative 2: So, what are you saying May? You're saying you challenge the whole moral structure of everything?
May: What moral structure? Is that the kind of nonsense you use on your pupils?
Relative 2: Do you not find human impulses basically decent?
May: There's basically nothing!
Saul: Such a cynic, my sister, a nihilist--back to Russia!
Relative 3: Listen, I happen to agree with May when it comes to all that mumbo jumbo.
Saul: How can you say that? You come to every Seder, you pray in Hebrew.
Relative 3: Yes, I'm going through the motions. It's like any ritual, it's a habit.
Relative 2: What are you saying, May? There's no morality anywhere in the whole world?
May: For those who want morality, there's morality. Nothing's handed down in stone.
Saul's Wife (Judah's mother): Saul's kind of faith is a gift. It's like an ear for music, or the talent to draw. He believes, and you can use logic on him all day long, and he still believes.
Saul: Must everything be logical?
[at this point, even though this is a fantasy sequence, Judah enters the conversation, while standing in the doorway]
Judah: If a man commits a crime, if he kills?
Saul: Then one way or another, he will be punished.
Relative 3: If he's caught, Saul.
Saul: And if he's not caught, that which originates from a black deed, will blossom in a foul manner.
Relative 3: You're relying a little too heavily on the Bible, Saul.
Saul: No, no, no--whether it's the Old Testament or Shakespeare, murder will out.
Judah: Who said anything about murder?
Saul: You did.
Judah: Did I?
May: And I say, if he can do it and get away with it, and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he's home free. Remember, history is written by the winners. And if the Nazis had won, future generations would understand the story of World War II quite differently.
Relative 3: And if all your faith is wrong, Saul? I mean, Just what if, huh? If, hmmm?
Saul: Then I'll still have a better life than all of those who doubt.
May: Wait a minute. Are you telling me that you prefer God to the truth?
Saul: If necessary, I will always choose God over truth.
[end of film "clip"]
Another interesting counterpoint to Allen's film [especially in relation to Aunt May's commentary] is this excerpt from Freud's Civilization and its Discontents [you don't have to agree with this, by the way, as it's a rather dim viewpoint on human nature, but it's a viewpoint, that's all]:
". . . . men are not gentle creatures, who want to be loved, who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them not only a potential helper or sexual object, but also someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus [man is wolf to man]. Who in the face of all his experience of life and of history, will have the courage to dispute this assertion? As a rule this cruel aggressiveness waits for some provocation or puts itself at the service of some other purpose, whose goal might also have been reached by milder measures. In circumstances that are favorable to it, when the mental counter-forces which ordinarily inhibit it are out of action, it also manifests itself spontaneously and reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration towards his own kind is something alien. Anyone who calls to mind the atrocities committed during the racial migrations or the invasions of the Huns, or by the people known as Mongols under Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane, or at the capture of Jerusalem by the pious Crusaders, or even, indeed, the horrors of the recent World War -- anyone who calls these things to mind will have to bow humbly before the truth of this view.
The existence of this inclination to aggression, which we can detect in ourselves and justly assume to be present in others, is the factor which disturbs our relations with our neighbor and which forces civilization into such a high expenditure [of energy]. In consequence of this primary mutual hostility of human beings, civilized society is perpetually threatened with disintegration. The interest of work in common would not hold it together; instinctual passions are stronger than reasonable interests. Civilization has to use its utmost efforts in order to set limits to man's aggressive instincts and to hold the manifestations of hem in check by psychical reaction-formations. Hence, therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relations of love, hence the restriction upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself -- a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man. In spite of every effort, these endeavors of civilization have not so far achieved very much. It hopes to prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence by itself assuming the right to use violence against criminals, but the law is not able to lay hold of the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness. The time comes when each one of us has to give up illusions the expectations which, in his youth. he pinned upon his fellow men, and when he may learn how much difficulty and pain has been added to his life by their ill-will."
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
And, the Ring is a small object that has a lot of power. Sauron's Ring can destroy the earth, but rings are also important gifts, like in Beowulf. Anyone see any connections, or other ideas?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
So, as far as weapons are concerned- it is as simple as that as to why Beowulf fought Grendel without "help." When he enters the fight with Grendel's mother, he does not know what exact weapon she may bare.
So there it is: in a true and fair fight, only experience, knowledge, and strength are to be the variables.
I am wondering how I could have gotten to be this old with out becoming aquanted with these stories. Especially since there seems to be a cult type following like a "Treky".
I had never heard of Beowolf either. It seems to remind me of parts of the Old Testament in the Bible.
I am a bit dissapointed that our Lord of the Ring books have pictures of the characters on the cover. As I have never watched the movies (and will not until after I have read the books), I would have rather their appearance be left to the readers imagination. After all that is the one of the major advantages to reading a book as opposed to watching the movie. I really think that is one reason the movies are never as good as the books, because the reader has already attatched a profile with the character.
I prefer to picture the hobbits to look more like Dobie from Harry Potter. I know that probably doesn't go along with the book, but I am going to stick with that as it is much more interesting then the pictures on the cover that look like regular people.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I do have a question about the women in heroic poetry that was discussed. Why are women to be feared? It seems that in the history books women couldn't do anything but tend to the house and raise the kids. They couldn't own land or work outside the home, so why are they feared?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
In Lord of the Rings, there are the tales of Gil-galad, Beren and Luthien, etc. In Beowulf, there's Sigemund the dragon slayer. It seems in every fantasy series that comes to mind there are heroes of the past to which the heroes of the story are compared.
Where else have you noticed this happening? Does this happen in other genres, or is this a heroic/fantasy thing?
Well as a Forgotten Realms fan, I just wanted to say that I would have liked to have seen more done with dwarves in the movie.
This story is kind of what Aragorn is living since he is in love with Arwen. Tolkien does a good job of finishing the story of Beren through the life of Aragorn as we find out towards the end of the trilogy.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I know we briefly touched on this in class, and I believe when we were talking about Beowulf, we said he had more confidence and faith in himself than in any higher power. I was just wondering other people's opinions as to how the characters forsee 'God'...it seems as if they speak of him and a higher power often, but have much more faith in themselves...
Or maybe I have it wrong?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
There's a lot of talk about ring givers. That being people who give freely of their riches. This matches with the hobbits giving of gifts and of the sayings of the high one. also the term "ring-giver" makes me think there is something more significant about rings in this culture that I'm not seeing. This might add something more significant to the value of the One Ring.
Also the long lineage and the historical value of each person in that lineage makes Beowulf a lot longer than it would be if it just concentrated on him. Definitely reminds me of that Monty Python skit. It also reminds me of the hobbit lineage that just seems to keep going in LOTR.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
I believe Rebecca mentioned in a previous note that she questions the power of the ring- whether it is trying to get back to it's owner. My question is, do you think that the ring is gaining more power over Frodo without him knowing it? I mean did the ring actually slip onto this finger without his allowing it to? And if this is true, maybe the panic and confusion was actually caused for the reason that the ring wants people to question Frodo and his friends, so that those hunting for him, might find him quickly.
Or does Frodo use the ring for his own purposes (like disappearing from an embarassing situation like the inn) without even realizing he does so? I have not read the whole trilogy yet, so I'm sure these questions will be answered eventually. But based solely on where we are right now in the book, does anyone have any opinions over who is actually in control of the ring?
On the same token, you can say that Sam should be considered too. I don't know if the book is the same as the movie, but doesn't Sam give up the ring under his own accord just like Bilbo? Earlier Gandalf is talking about Bilbo and he says, "For he gave it up in the end of his own accord: a very important point." Gandalf and Tom do the same. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
To me it seems that the two societies that Tolkien paints in the best light are Hobbits and Elves. Both are primarily focused on natural things. The evil forces, Sauron, Sauiman, etc... seem to be goal oriented and will expliot nature to further thier goals.
The character I find most interesting is Tom Bombadil, although there is little explanation about his origens or purpose. If not for him the whole quest would have ended abruptly 30 minutes outside the shire.
Any thought on this, or information on the Bombadil character?
Blind Guardian also has an album entitled "Nightfall in Middle Earth," which is based off of The Silmarillion, by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Here is another video entitled "They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard." This is actually very amusing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tin6NJqQQsM
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I am curious because I think each race has unique characteristics that set them apart from each other, and since it would be hard to get to know all 7oish of you, this would be a fun way to associate a characteristic with a person and in the process, get to know everyone!
I would be an elf because I am rather clumsy, and with elf-grace, I would never embarrass myself! Also, I am a Sagittarius, and we are known for our arching ability, so I think this would be my natural choice.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Lord of the Rhymes is hilarious, but they also drop the "F"bomb... A LOT.
He writes this beautiful, epic, amazingly intricate world full of detail and hidden treasures and past histories that the devoted reader can enjoy. He creates hundreds of characters, major and minor, each with their own personalities and quirks.
Then he gives the two villains of the books practically the same name! Argh!! I always have so much trouble keeping them apart.
Why couldn't it be Al and Zebadiah?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
It's a thought-provoking article about racial and ecological discourse in Lord of the Rings in the context of mid-twentieth century Nazi rhetoric concerning race and environment.
Have a read through and share your thoughts once you get blogging!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Welcome to IS-399 "The Lord of the Rings and Medieval Heroic Poetry"
This Blog will be a forum for discussion of all things Tolkien for the class. Please feel free to continue class discussions on this Blog or start new discussions! Share your thoughts with the class and make your voice heard!