h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

WHAT???????? When did that happen and could I have missed it?

Methos who inevitably has to think of the white light a certain boy has seen

That's brilliant, recumbentman. I *so* look forward to seeing that scene! (Not because I expect to like it - it sounds lame)

No, you're not alone... *I* am an old lady.

I've read LoTR several times, but not for twenty years. Seeing the films and reading this thread have brought a lot of it back. This discussion has been a great read. I've realised many things I hadn't known I'd thought or even seen until they were pointed out here.

It doesn't seem right just to drop a in, but having read all the b'log I want to keep my place so I'll post my for what they're worth. Which isn't much.


I don't think Tolkein had an underlying message that he created LOTR as a vehicle for. Much of it isn't necessary for that, ie. creating languages and background that the story stands up without. My understanding is that much of the background wasn't published by him. Which suggests that he wrote to satisfy his own need to create and write, and not out of a desire to pass on a message. He had a great imagination and must have had a considerable capacity to remember and keep track of detail. Maybe he found himself with this 'other earth' in his head that was too real to him to just let go like a dream. He wrote it down partly to write it out of his head, partly to share, partly to give its own existence - independent of him.

But at the same time, the books can't help being influenced by all his values and experiences, and readers can choose to find messages for themselves in that.

I've been wondering if The Hobbit didn't start the whole thing. To me it's a very separate book. It shares a bit of plot and some character names but although it's similar it's not the same middle earth that it's based in. It has an altogether lighter tone - more fairy story than myth. From memory, the dwarfs and Gandalf are not the same as they are in LoTR. What if The Hobbit, a simple story created to amuse children perhaps, left loose ends that Tolkien couldn't let go of. Like the fact that Bilbo, very improperly, got away with pinching Gollum's ring. It was stealing really, Gollum's right about that. It's not the sort of story that should end with its hero benefitting from misdoing.

You can resolve that by making it the Ring's fault, not Bilbo's. The Ring made him do it. But that creates bigger problems. It means it must be a bad Ring. Moreover it's a powerful bad Ring and Tolkein's left it in Hobbiton, with his hero. That's plain irresponsible. So his imagination is unleashed to work out where the Ring came from, what it was up to, what its intentions in hitching a lift with Bilbo were.... And Bilbo's your uncle - Tolkein's got this whole world of myth and legend running riot in his head.

Well it's a theory.

I thoroughly enjoyed the films. I never expected them to live up to the books, they got much closer than I thought possible.

Thanks for mentioning this thread Shorn, even if means *none* of the things I meant to do today have been done
Waz

Hasn't anyone read the Foreword (or is it the introduction...whatever)?

The author clearly states that Tolkien had absolutely no theme or underlying message in mind for tLotR. It was probably just something to do in his spare time...and old guys seem to have a lot of it, I guess.

(I personally think that all of the "History Of Middle-earth" books were really bad. Christopher Tolkien wasn't a very good author (in my opinion)).

I agree with all you say, Waz.

One of my strongest reactions on reading the book first was "I'll never trust history books again" -- because here was an apparently bottomless fund of detail, background, calendars, languages, a world history for God's sake -- all the stuff that would have made me trust the veracity of a piece of "historical" writing -- and it's all the most blatant fiction! Tolkien demonstrated that detail, consistency and completeness do not in any way guarantee truth in evidence or reporting!

TV production has recently (just about) caught up with that idea, with fake but unsettlingly convincing "documentaries".

I struggle with some of the ideas that have been written about 'underlying messages, agendas and themes' in books of all kinds, not least lord of the rings, and the rest of Tolkien's work.

There will inevitably be agendas in an authors work, that is the only reason to write, or create any work of art for that matter. That the author does not have an explicit outright mision in mind when he begins to write doesn't seem t me to be the point. It is clear that Tolkien has a love of nature and a disdain for industry, it is also clear that many of his works are fundamentally concerned with the battle between good and evil. There are undoubtably themes about brotherhood, companionship and loyalty, but also redemption and seduction concerned with power. what concerns me about many of the written criticism of Tolkien is that most of it seems to be looking for the 'Big reason' Tolkien wrote the 'secret meaning' he was getting at. At one time I remember the plot of LOTR being described as an allegory for WW II.

Personally I think that those writers which talk about Tolkien in this way miss the point. In Tolkiens letters it is very clear that his 'big message' if you can call it that, is concerned with the art of story telling itself, his interest in old writing is wrapped up with this, the story telling of the 'inklings' is concerned with this. Tolkien seems most concerned that there was an art to storytelling and that this art had for thousands of years been a central part of human civilisation. I get a sense from his letters that Tolkien felt that this art was in some way under threat, that modern story telling was somehow loosing its sense of scale and was relying more on imediate impact rather than depth of what modern film makers might call back story.

I dont remember where I read it but I heard once that Tolkien wanted to create an British Mythology, something which matched the myths of Greece or the Vikings. It seems to me that this is his most significant agenda. All the rest may very well be true, Tolkien lived through the first and second world wars, both in different ways titanic struggles between good and evil. These in lots of ways represent the most obviously destructive elements of industrialisation. In short, as we all are, Tolkien was a product of his environment, his experiences and the flow of history, but these things did not confine him rather they gave his imagination a target and a way to grow far beyond what he would have been able to do in less interesting times.

Incidentally writing LOTR seemed to be a mission for him if you read Tolkiens letters, it clearly fills his thinking time at the expense of some of the things he should have been doing like being an Oxford Don for instance, at times it seems as if the fame of the Hobbit is all that was keeping him a job.

Also more than almost any other writer I know Tolkien was writing elements of the history and plot lines of middle earth almost from the moment that he could write. (in my experience young men often seem to have the time to be bored rather than old men, Too many responsibilities you see) Although Christopher Tolkien may or may not be a great author what he did do was give fans of his fathers work access to the mass of writing that his father worked through to reach the final polished work something that may well have been lost and with other authors often is.

Sorry this is such an epistle, but I am a big fan of JRRT as you can no doubt tell.

“I agree with all you say, Waz” – except my spelling of Tolkien . Sorry about that. Spelling’s not a strong point.

“fake but convincing documentaries” – the myths of the future?

StrontiumDog, that’s interesting. It means some of the background to LoTR was there when The Hobbit was written but The Hobbit wasn’t written from that background. Perhaps because it would have made it too long. Like, oh, say three volumes and 1000 pages too long?

My problem with the idea of creating a British mythology is that I feel a culture’s mythology has to grow from that culture, it can’t be superimposed. Or can it? X filesism and Buffyism seem to be filling the mythology gap for some. But they make no pretence of rewriting the past, they just interpret the present.

Tolkien had a respect for mythology, would he really think he could create it? The best he could hope for was to show his readers what they were missing in the hope they’d develop an appreciation for myth and go and seek out their own.

Perhaps we have and what we found were secret heros fighting alien invading overlords and vampires.
Waz

Was

I wish I could remember where I came accross the comment about creating a british mythology, I have a suspicion that it was a biographers comment but I am not sure. One of the difficulties trying to understand a writers motives is that writing like other creative arts is a very personal process. I think that you may be right about tolkien introducing people to the idea of myth as a valuable commodity.

Tolkiens letters cerainly lend weight to the idea that the Hobbit was fitted into the mythology whilst the LOTR was being written, although some of the elements were included originaly dwarf runes for instance. Interestingly whilst writing the LOTR tolkien went back and re-wrote the scene in moria with Golum and Bilbo and the Ring to make it fit with the plot of LOTR subsequent editions include the changes he made.

I think what I find so fascinating about this quite quiet Oxford Professor is that he was so determined to make everything in his work internally consistant, and this is one of the reasons I find errors in the film production of Mr Jackson unsettling at one level (I still thouroughly enjoyed them) eliminating Tom Bombadil makes good cinematic sense but I wanted the film to include it nonetheless, the barrels annoy me now because my eye is drawn to their appearence and disappearance. The changes to who speaks where and when unsettle me too.

I am generous enough to tolerate the changes made on the grounds that cinema is a different media to a book and Mr Jackson presumably knows what he is doing.

The usettling nature of changes would seem to me to be more about me than about the differences themselves, I suppose I am selfish enough to want my vision produced on screen for me without any effort on my part. But there is also th fact that when I first read the LOTR it had a particular meaning for me as a 11 year old boy and a part of me wants to recapture that meaning (even though I can't) and the changes only highlight that for me it is now 30 years ago (Woops gave away my age there). I think that this is what makes the LOTR really interesting, either you love it with an irational and sometimes unreasonable passion or you hate it, I love it and really struggle to understand how someone could not be as passionate about it as I am. I know lots of people aren't but there you go.

you're going to have to give me a blow-by-blow account of where the problem is with the barrels...


Most of the people I know can't understand how I can keep reading the same book over and over. Many of them have never tried, and some have tried and given up. I'm taking the tip from up there (whoever it was - Asmodai, was it you?) and getting my hubs to read the tale of Aragorn and Arwen first, and I may throw in the tale of Beren and Luthien too... and then let him start from the beginning.

And I'm getting the feeling you like Tom folderol Bombadill? Eeekkkk... stay back!!

Didn't Asmodai and I have a knock-down drag out about the mythology for Britain thing?

LoTR stands up to constant re-readings surprisingly well and thanks to the writing style it hasn't aged, which is something a number of my favourite reads have suffered from.

my other favourite read is Ivanhoe, which stands the test of time (for me) too

I just love the way you can read LOTR for years and years, have a chat with someone else, and bingo! you have something new to look out for next time.

I enjoy re-reading the books as well (only once a year for last 14 years (not as excessive as Mr C Lee but hey I am not that old)). I think the sign of a good book is one you can re-read and find new perspective in it. For me this makes Lord of the Rings a good book (or should that be Trilogy (or as it was originally desinged to be a hexogy?)

By the way Sho - the scene you mentioned of Viggo and Bernard Hill is an out-take that is duscussed on the 2nd CD of TTT by Bernard Hill. As he said at the time it just shocked him. But not as much as the message from the make-up girl the next day which she asked Bernard Hill to give to Viggo. It contained the message please could you kiss me like that Viggo and I will be yours forever. *lol*

That's where I heard him talk about it - but I was wondering if I dreamed it (heh heh heh) or if there is subsequently a very quick clip of that scene? I think it must be an early one of the Battle of the Hornburg.

I'm just about to encounter Shelob in this year's reading. From here on in, this time, I'm paying extra special attention to Sam's development.

If I hit on anything I'll report back.

But for now, I'm going to bed with a good a hobbit, an and a big scary

Cool to hear Sho - enjoy and good night and don't let the spider bite *lmao*.

I'm scared of reading that bit at night, but I really want to get it over with so I can read ROTK

sheesh, what a life!

Could be worse - could be reading a horror book (must admit do not find many horror books horrifying though)

The Shelob episode in the book is about the most repulsive thing I've ever witnessed. Sweet dreams!

<>
He didn't start it when he was an old guy, Bored. (Well, I suppose that depends on how you define old, but he was writing around marking papers, teaching etc.)
<>
I am reading the Silmarillion, but how I understood it, is Christopher just put it all together, he didn't really write it all.

Was

its hard to describe the barrel thing, just watch the background in the scenes between Frodo and Sams capture by Faramir and Frodo helping Faramir capture Golum to save Golum's life. I think that's the section it might be a few minutes later on but I dont think so. I'll check it out myself as soon as I can, it's a trivial point really, but it irritated me at the time.

I wish I had time to catch up on all the 600 or so posts in this conversation so if the British mythology thing is a repetition I appologise.

It is a constant amazement to me that people are so negative about poor old Tom, I agree that in the overall plot of the book he doesn't fit, he doesnt have a part to play in the war of the ring as such. But I can't help but like him. He seems to me to be the one element that puts Tolkiens Lovable Excentricity up front, I feel that without Tom the book might feel too accademic and intulectual, for me Tom rounds it off by hinting that triviality and at times downright sillyness can be quite comforting no matter how dark and forbidding the place you are is.

I think that although Tolkien was in many ways writing for himself the fact that he was constantly discussing the plot with Christopher (In his letters at least) means that it has an intergenerational quality, if you read it at different times of your life it has different meanings for you, I think that as well as this Tolkien was more aware than most of the course of his life and was able to hold on to thoughts and feelings from different times in his life.

As I understand it Christopher was not much more than an editor on the Silmarillion, I think his father was very anxious that as the book was so fundamentaly different to the Hobbit and the LOTR that he was not certain how the public would recieve it, I suspect he might have worried that they might feel betrayed, it seems that he had similar feelings about the LOTR against the Hobbit.

As I understand it Christopher did not really present himself as an author as such, the history of Middle earth is more a collection of his fathers unpublished and often incomplete writings and some thinking about how middle Earth came to be created in his fathers mind. I confess I have not read the later volumes only the first 4 or 5. I feel that as well as the financial renumeration that Christopher recieved for these works that he was probably just in the habit of thinking about Mddle Earth given the ongoing correspondence in Tolkiens letters. There was also a clamour among fans of Tolkien for More, since Tolkien himself could not provide more (He was dead by the time the clamour became a tumult) Christopher in many ways responded to public demand. I also belive that Christophers contribution to the LOTR is often underestimated, the letters suggest that JRRT frequently took his sons advice modyfying characters or scenes on the basis of this. To my mind there was an unacknowledged collaboration going on, which as children of deceased parents are want to do continued in christophers writing following the death of his father.

The other thing that often supprises me is how east it is to ramble on endlessly about Tolkiens writing, I'll shut up mow befor you get too bored of reading me.