#lotr book spoilers

[mrbigpepperoninipples]

Spoiler for lotr book 1 fellowship of the ring chapters 3 and 4 (I did doodles)

.

.

.

Chapter 3! I thought Gandalf would be there by now but he hasn’t so I drew a Pippin

They’re a moving

Eminem and Bilbo have never been seen in the same room together, think about that

The group in big tree, I draw them soup

When people say elves I think of Santa’s Elves sooo yeah

Hobbits sleeping in piles>>>

Chapter 4 (it was hilarious when Frodo and Sam were afraid of dogs)

Sam and Pippin dramatic alcoholics confirmed?

A llooonnngg journey

Baby Frodo stealing mushrooms

[headcannonballs]

I might elaborate on these individual incidents on later posts but upon multiple viewings I can finally put words to why I hated the characterizations of multiple characters in the LotR movie trilogy.

It is because PJ & Co. 's favourite method of storytelling is to pull down side characters to build up their own heroes.

And I'm talking about the 'holy' trinity of Sam, Aragorn and Thorin.

Frankly, book readers should've seen it coming from a mile away.

So let's start with Sam. Raise your hand if you've ever seen any fan trumpeting that Sam is the 'real' hero. And nine out of ten, these fans were introduced into LotR through the movies. Congratulations Pete, you've succeeded!

Now before touching the Tolkien letter 'supporting' this idea (where if you read the full letter you'll understand Sam is only more of a chief hero when compared to a very specific character and that character is not Frodo *coughAragorncough*), I would like to draw attention to one simple fact - is there any other major character in the trilogy that has more of his flaws ignored, covered-up or outright repurposed to become a good quality? Because I come up with nothing.

Sam is the quintessential hobbit. He represents all their best traits - that assured loyalty, the steadfast friendship, the simple appreciation for nature. But he is also a representative of all of their worst traits - the closed-mindedness, the blind adherence to hierarchy and the prejudice against the lowly and the unknown.

But Sam does none of that!

Yeah, you'd be correct - if you only watched the movies. That is precisely the point.

The absolute heart of LotR is Frodo's journey, but Frodo is a 'terrible' male lead for a Fantasy themed action adventure film. He is a middle-aged man who sets out on a selfless journey to save the world (but not for himself). He doesn't have a dramatic character arc, majority of his battles are internal and require monologues, and the only visible sign of his burden is completely up to the polish of the individual actor's performance. For the epic type of film PJ planned, Frodo is a nightmare.

But there is an easy solution for this - Frodo is accompanied by Sam throughout the entire journey. Sam, unlike Frodo, has underdog written all over him. It is easy to make a character arc about a nobody becoming a somebody. He has a major battle one-to-one against a giant spider. He is allowed a large variety of emotions that don't require depth (excepting key moments) because he is meant to be simple-minded.

So what does PJ & Co. do?

They make Sam the main lead, of course. The beginning chapters are understandably condensed, but Sam still gets his 'dropping eaves on Mr. Frodo' part of the story untouched, whereas all of Frodo's planning, all of Merry's intelligence, and Pippin and Fatty's contributions were all cut out.

We soon meet Strider, and immediately Sam's foolhardiness is front and centre in the book. He looks down upon this lowly ranger and almost interrogates him only to have Strider illustrate how such behaviour could have easily gotten Sam and Frodo killed. It is Frodo who speaks with wisdom and questions Strider in a more moderate way.

And this entire farce of speaking out of turn happens again when they meet Faramir. Sam is not only not wise, his is foolish enough to make the exact same mistake twice. And similarly Faramir reprimands him and tells him not to speak before Frodo has spoken.

But instead of highlighting these incidents as a flaw Sam should learn to grow from, both times in the movies PJ instead frames the incidents as Sam being justified in his words and defence of Frodo. His bravado is praised as being a loyal friend, instead of the foolish actions they are.

But even with erasing Sam's faults, there is still a problem - Frodo. Frodo's relationship with Sam has become closer than master/servant, but there is still an inate imbalance (more due to Frodo's age and wisdom than anything else) to frame it as just simple friendship.

Personally I feel it is like Sam views Frodo as his senpai, his leading light. And Frodo wishes to guide Sam to learn new things, because Sam's presence as a quintessential hobbit is so much like home that he remains a constant comfort to Frodo no matter the burden of the One Ring.

But Frodo and Sam having a senpai-kouhai relationship is troublesome, because Frodo never leaves. He is the one Sam consistently depends on to lead him, and book!Sam's most major growth actually occurs after Frodo has left for the Undying Lands and Sam grows to become a capable Mayor.

So naturally Frodo has to be weakened to let Sam shine. Firstly, the age difference is removed completely, even going in the opposite direction - Sam is now older than Frodo and cares for him like an elder brother or butler. When faced with dangerous situations like the Nazgul or the troll, Sam is the fearless one instead of Frodo. Sam's wariness is always affirmed by the narrative and Frodo's wisdom in discerning people is putdown as blind kindness.

Nowhere is this more obvious than the Frodo-Sam-Gollum relationship.

In the book, Sam's wariness towards Gollum stems from both the creature's poor reputation, but also from petty jealousy. The threat of betrayal from Gollum is real, yes, but throughout the book Frodo has it under control. He never trusts Gollum more than he needed to, and in fact was winning Gollum's trust with his wisdom, kindness and fair-minded treatment.

But Sam had different ideas. Before Gollum, Sam had always been the closest to Mr. Frodo, not only because of their close relationship, but also because Sam sees himself as the most useful to Frodo. Sure, Merry and Pippin and friends, but neither can serve Mr. Frodo the way he can. Until Gollum.

Gollum is brought in as an indispensable guide and Sam immediately feels threatened. He doesn't actually physically threaten Gollum, but instead resorts to childish name-calling to put Gollum down. He constantly wished to assert dominance over Gollum, to show he is closer to Frodo no matter how good a job Gollum does. Sam basically just wants to 'put him in his lowly place'.

It is this relentless bullying that ends up destroying Gollum's redemption (something also in a Tolkien letter, but Sam fans won't bring this one up), and forces the destruction of the ring to be 'an act of God' instead of Gollum's own will.

This is the biggest flaw in Sam - that he is quick to judge and slow to pity, a trait highly unsuitable for a ringbearer, much less the 'main' hero. This is also the main reason for Frodo's character change and the dynamics change in the relationship between all three.

It is extremely difficult to just cut out all the antagonistic actions Sam has taken against Gollum, so instead the path PJ & Co. took is to 'make Sam right'.

Instead of Frodo being in control and trying to make Sam and Gollum get along, make it that Frodo is the helpless one and being pulled in two different directions. Sam, being the hero, is correct. And Gollum naturally has to be wrong. Frodo, because of the 'evil influence of the Ring' chooses wrongly and believes Gollum, giving rise to the infamous "Sam, go home" scene.

This change of the relationship dynamics both strengthens Sam's moral position as well as weakens Frodo's wisdom. And to PJ & Co. that is a good thing, because now Sam is truly the main lead.

I'll think I continue Aragorn and Thorin another day, but you can be assured that PJ & Co. just uses the same tricks again *coughFaramirandThranduilcough*.

[beaulesbian]

The Rings of Power 2.07

Neither of us was strong enough. There might not be anyone in Middle-earth who is. But perhaps, the Elves need only remember that it is not strength that overcomes darkness, but light. Armies may rise, hearts may fail, yet still, light endures and is mightier than strength. For in its presence, all darkness must flee. Namarië.

[totalherald]

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power S2.E1 "Elven Kings Under the Sky"

[kazz-brekker]

i present: my extremely long and highly specific list of book recs for my fellow rings of power fans

[itsmetheabnormalone]

He’s alright guys. Brimby’s with me. He’s safe.

[thenotoriousscuttlecliff]

So I'm assuming the top image is Círdan in the First Age, possibly during the youth of Eärendil or Elrond (in the text he was a father figure to Eärendil and that role might be switched to Elrond for the show), and the bottom image is him during the Second Age, looking a lot older, but not as old as he'll look by the end of the Third Age (he's only just getting started on that beard).

[dark-silhouette]

I just watched episode 8, and I honestly feel very bad; I feel sad. I can't accept that Adar died. He just wanted his Uruk to be free and live in peace. I thought we'd see more about his past or at least tell him what his old name was... We weren't even given that.

Galadriel could have helped him at least kill some orcs...

On the other hand I'm surprised that Arondir is as if nothing had happened, not even a scratch.

[highfantasy-soul]

My view on the Elrond/Galadriel kiss:

Cultures be different.

Kisses on the lips are not always sexual/romantic. (I, as an American, have kissed certain friends on the lips in completely platonic ways)

In many cultures, closed-mouthed kisses on the lips are a sign of love and emotional connection in a platonic/familial way.

Specifically American aversion to affection in any form is rotting people's brains - here, a lot of men won't even HUG each other because they think it's 'too intimate'. Other cultures kiss on the hand, cheek, forehead, nose, and yes, lips too, in completely platonic ways. [And we're not even going to get into the large portion of the population who thinks that men and women literally CANNOT be just friends, if a man and woman are close, it HAS to be romantic/sexual.]

Just because YOUR culture/personal preference reserves lip kisses for romantic/sexual feelings only doesn't mean everyone else is wrong for feeling differently.

I didn't read the kiss as Elrond secretly having romantic feelings for Galadriel at all - to me it was clear it was a platonic show of how much he cared for her and how sorry he was that they had been at odds all season (and largely in S1 too) and was afraid it was really going to be the last time he saw her. He wanted to show her just how much she meant to him - PLATONICALLY - and a tender kiss (while also using it as a distraction to slip her a lock-pick) was the way he did it.

Obviously it's ok for people to interpret it as romantic if they ship Galadriel and Elrond, but to say that's the ONLY interpretation based on your own limited cultural understanding of what a kiss could mean is just frustrating.

[so-very-small]

give your giantess OC a sword. or perhaps a tasteful dagger. she needs it so so bad she told me herself

[olessan]

[mrbigpepperoninipples]

Book one Lord of the Rings, fellowship of the ring chapter seven spoilers! (Doodles I made throughout the chapter lol)

.

.

.

Eating good at Tom’s house cause he’s the coolest

Frodo got a little Crushy crush

End of chapter doodle (they’re singing)

[wanderer-clarisse]

I am back with the lotr doodles! The Last Debate:

and there they found their friends in the garden, and their meeting was a merry one. For a while they walked and talked, rejoicing for a brief space in peace and rest under the morning high up in the windy circles of the City. Then when Merry became weary, they went and sat upon the wall with the greensward of the Houses of Healing behind them...

[trojanteapot]

DUNE PART TWO SPOILERS

Just an observation that may not pan out, but I definitely feel like the fact they had Alia not be born yet throughout the film is gonna turn into the Tom Bombadil of the Dune movies vs books discourse.

This is because they changed her role for the same reason that they cut Tom Bombadil out of the film adaptation of Fellowship, which is that he would be too silly, and super genius murder toddler Alia Atreides would also be too silly. But LOTR book fans love Tom Bombadil, and Dune book fans love murder-baby Alia, so both are disappointed.

IMO I actually do like that Paul got to kill the Baron instead, and got the badass "Grandfather, you die like an animal" line, because Baron Harkonnen was more directly Paul's enemy through both films and throughout the books, and it feels more satisfying for his character arc. Paul is still motivated by vengeance over the assassination of his father, and unlike Alia, Paul actually grew up with Leto and actually has an emotional stake in killing the Baron.

Even though, yes having a three year old scamper around stabbing people would have also been cool I guess?

[agardenintheshire]

excerpt from meriadoc brandybuck's introduction to his book herblore of the shire.....imagine shouting out your bestie wizard friend that you went on a wild adventure with where you almost died in your book about the history of weed*!!!!

[as-kind-as-summer]

In the vein of 'why can't we just accept things as fun,' why are people so obsessed with canon? Like so many of the arguments I've seen for Rings of Power being "bad" are that it's not canon. Okay and? I don't know maybe it's because I grew up seeing a lot of my favorite stories adapted and I had to learn that things were going to be cut and changed for time and to appeal to a wider audience so it doesn't bother me much anymore. Maybe it's because I'm finally letting myself find unrestricted joy in things but I'm just so tired of seeing bad faith takes and having people go into something hating it before they've even given it a chance.