Lord of the Rings

As with all things regarding the Balrog, it's size is open to interpretation:

"Greater than man-shape", and able to make Gandalf look small in comparison. Maybe the Balrog, since it is a spirit of shadow and flame, appears as large or small as it wants to.

edited 15th Jun '17 10:49:31 AM by Bense

Not to mention, the symbolism of a small tree before a storm? PJ's version DEFINITELY captured that

I always picture of Book Balrog as being just a giant Shadow that go on flames .

Same. My one complaint about movie balrog would be that it seems too tangible.

The Balrog in the book projects fear and darkness around it, and like the Ringwraiths that seems to be it's primary power, but that is a little difficult to show in a film. So a giant flaming rock demon serves as a pretty adequate substitute.

I have no complaints about the Peter Jackson rendition of the Balrog. And I'll note that while fear is one of its major weapons, it's entirely capable of fighting with sword, whip, or flame. We see that in The Silmarillion. Most of the Balrogs have been slain by the time of the Third Age; the few that remain were driven deep underground; hence the Dug Too Deep trope.

it's also worth noting that Gandalf is the only one able to face it for two reasons: one, he's a Maia, and so of an equivalent metaphysical stature (Balrogs are corrupted Maiar); two, he has Narya, one of the Three Elven Rings, whose main power is to rekindle hope in people's hearts. In RPG terms, it makes Gandalf immune to the Balrog's fear aura.

edited 19th Jun '17 8:06:18 AM by Fighteer

They're not only both Maia, but they're both Maia with a strong connection to fire, which makes it even more of an even match. It's even a Pyrrhic Victory for Gandalf when he finally defeats the Balrog at the top of the mount, since he dies of his wounds immediately afterward.

I only wish the Balrog was smaller. A bit closer to human-sized.

Maybe like 10 feet tall

Yeah, make him too big, and him being on that bridge conjures the idea that he must be on his tippy-toes to keep his feet on it.

... So what if he was standing on his tiptoes? He's a freaking Balrog, not a being of the natural world of Arda. He's basically a demon, and thus not as constrained by our silly laws of physics and whatnot as we mere mortals and those gods/demigods/demons who deliberately constrain themselves to earthly forms are.

I should note that Balrogs are exactly "spirits that have constrained themselves to earthly forms"; that's why we're able to perceive them at all. They've taken on rather eldritch forms, to be sure, but they're still bound by the rules of embodiment.

edited 25th Jun '17 7:52:45 AM by Fighteer

Note that the Balrog falls when the bridge breaks, so it apparently was susceptible to gravity.

I found an analysis online that makes some interesting points regarding Balrog size.

• The bridge is described as follows:
  At the end of the hall the floor vanished and fell to an unknown depth. The outer door could only be reached by a slender bridge of stone, without kerb or rail, that spanned the chasm with one curving spring of fifty feet...they could only pass across it in single file.
  50 feet long, and narrow enough that humans have to go single file - probably not more than 3-4' wide.
• When Gandalf takes his stand, he "stood in the middle of the span" - at roughly 25 feet from either edge, in other words.
• The Balrog halts at the edge of the bridge, Gandalf tells it to go away, and then it steps "forward slowly on to the bridge" and draws itself up to intimidate Gandalf (this is the bit with the "wings spread from wall to wall"). So it took one step, probably not more than two onto the bridge.
• Without taking another step, the Balrog attacks Gandalf with its sword. Gandalf knocks the Balrog back off the bridge entirely and breaks its sword with Glamdring, taking a pace back himself in exchange.
• Only then does the Balrog leap full on the bridge, and then Gandalf breaks the span, plunging it into the abyss.
• It's whip at least is long enough that the entire Balrog can "[plunge] down and vanish" into the abyss before the whip entangles Gandalf's legs.

So, the Balrog had a long enough reach to fight Gandalf with its sword after having only taken one or at most 2 steps onto the bridge. In other words, it was fighting Gandalf hand to hand with its feet about 20 feet away. That sounds like it was pretty large after all.

That whip was pretty long as well to do what it did. Note that unlike in the movie, there is nothing about the whip being made of fire, and it has "many thongs" not just one.

edited 26th Jun '17 10:47:41 AM by Bense

So at long last I finally started the Lord of the Rings book(s) after finding a beautiful Doorstopper edition with a map of Middle-Earth included. Well, beautiful except for the fact that the cover wears out ridiculously fast. In any case, I just finished The Fellowship.

So among the notable points, that intrigued me or surprised me, compared to the films or not:

• There's a 20 year gap between Bilbo's disappearance and the start of the Quest… and Frodo is 50 years old then… That puts a different light on Bilbo's aging when they meet again in Rivendell. >.> But apparently Hobbits usually live over 100 years so it... kinda works I guess?
• Tom Bombadil…What the fish is this character? I don't really mind the character himself or his concept, but he felt pretty pointless in the overall plot. Like, you have this super-powerful character who may be more ancient than Sauron himself and is utterly unaffected by the Ring… and he's just a bystander. Quite an odd narrative choice.
• It seems no character in this book is satisfied if they don't tell the entire History of Middle-Earth before getting to the point. Interesting for worldbuilding, sure, but it can hurt the pacing pretty bad.
• Also, too. Many. Fucking. SONGS. This must be what it feels like to read a musical in book form.
• …But other than that, boy is Tolkien good at describing the landscapes in lush and immersive details. The vocabulary is sometimes a bit obscure for a non-native like me (the Antiquated Linguistics not always helping) but it still works.
• I'm surprised at how little Saruman there is in the Fellowship book. We only know him through Gandalf's exposition, and even the snowy mountain scene is apparently just Caradhras "defending itself" instead of Saruman sending storms at the Company.
• Speaking of which, the Fellowship of the Ring is never called that in the book, just "the Company". It amused me.
• I guess it figures, but the book's slower pace really makes you feel how tiresome and dangerous at every step the travel is. It particularly shows in The Moria, a place where you really don't want to spend the night even when there's no enemy around. The whole passage on the Anduin does a good job at that too.
• So in the book, Gandalf is dragged down by the Balrog and cries "Fly you fools" WHILE HE'S FALLING. Which makes a lot more sense. I never got why he just let himself go in the film, even though it seemed like he could have lifted himself up or at least gotten some help…
• Arwen exists. I know it because the book briefly mentions her. I think. Galadriel more than compensates though.
• So… Aragorn has his sword reforged right from the beginning? And he doesn't seem to show any reluctance either at being the king… huh.
• Oh hey, Boromir survives to the end here. For now.
• Poor, poor Bill… =[ He'd better get a Big Damn Hero moment at some point.

So yeah it's pretty damn fun… in the second half. The first half drags a bit, and the Bombadil part certainly doesn't help. Overall though, I'd say Peter Jackson was very clever in his adaptation choices.

That's quite a list. I'll say that it has to be rather odd to read the books after seeing the movies. I read them as a kid (and then read them again and again and again...) so it was very interesting to see them realized on screen (with the occasional bit of anguish, I'll admit).

A couple of responses and clarifications:

• Hobbits do live longer natural lives than humans. They're considered to "come of age" at 33 (compared with 16 to 18 for human cultures), and living past 100 is entirely normal (Bilbo's "eleventy-first" birthday celebration in the opening is a frequent enough occurrence to get its own name). Merry and Pippin are still considered minors at The Party, which is why they act so childishly (an explanation that the movies omit). That said, Bilbo's advanced age without any signs of senescence are an effect of the One Ring, which is part of what causes Gandalf to suspect its identity. After he surrenders the Ring and moves to Rivendell, he resumes his natural aging, which is why he's so decrepit when the Hobbits arrive there.
• Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest are a bit of a weird element, to be sure. They don't serve any larger narrative purpose, and we must remember when talking about them that Tolkien was less interested in writing a single coherent narrative than he was in world-building. The inclusion of that section of the story is intended to showcase that Middle-Earth is home to older powers that are not terribly concerned with the plight of mortals. Bombadil has no power over the Ring (nor it over him) because he lacks any ambition and is something of an Outside Context character to the whole deal.
  
  When you get to The Two Towers and start reading about the Ents, you'll find that they actually know Bombadil (or know about him, at least). Again, it's a glimpse into the ancient days of Middle-Earth, long before the conflicts of the Second and Third Ages. It seems plausible that Bombadil is a Maia (of the same order as Gandalf and Sauron), but there's no confirmation of that anywhere, nor does he owe any apparent allegiance to the Valar or to Melkor.
• Arwen... where to begin? Tolkien was something of a traditionalist when it came to gender roles, and it shows in the utterly passive role that most female characters have, if they even exist at all. (You'll note that Eowyn is seen as an aberration even by the protagonists, and her story arc ends with her marrying and giving up her sword, because that's all she really wanted in her truest of hearts, you see.) Arwen's expanded part in the films is one of the best choices that Jackson made, in my opinion. Her rescue of Frodo during the flight to Rivendell in the films is done by Glorfindel in the books. PJ basically merged the two characters. I could have done without the sappy "Sauron strips Arwen of her immortality" drama, though, which is completely invented for the films and, in a way, cheapens her choice to marry Aragorn.
• Aragorn's personal conflicts about becoming King basically don't exist in the books. He's an archetypal hero of the kind that Tolkien was particularly fond of. "Escort Company, protect Frodo, fight Sauron, become King, marry Elf, restore line of Numenor." That's his character in a nutshell. It's not badly written in the novel, but on screen it would be pretty boring. That said, I think PJ took his angst a tad too far.

edited 28th Jun '17 12:04:29 PM by Fighteer

Regarding Tom Bombadil, it's important to remember that The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit, and the hobbits' encounter with Bombadil and their adventures in the Old Forest are exactly the sort of random-adventure-while-on-the-road event that people would expect from The Hobbit. It only seems out-of-place when viewed in the context of what comes later.

And all of it takes place in a much larger world that has existed for thousands of years before the events in either book. Indeed, Tolkien saw LotR (and The Hobbit) as mere chapters of that vast mythology, of which the linguistic and cultural elements were always the most important parts. The world evolved markedly over the decades that he was writing about it as well, leading to not a small number of continuity issues.

edited 28th Jun '17 11:48:39 AM by Fighteer

Yeah, it seems so. It's still problematic when it makes the story screech to a halt. The Bombadil sequence would have been more appropriate in a short story collection about Middle-Earth or something.

Regarding Bilbo's aging… It does raise the question of why Gollum didn't age and die even decades after losing the Ring. Was it because his mind hadn't let go of it?

Also, a bit of a silly question, but were Sméagol and Déagol lovers, or was "my love" just another of its weird verbal ticses?

edited 28th Jun '17 12:28:10 PM by Lyendith

The Rings are an inexorable trap. Wearing one stretches out your life, so you don't die, but neither do you remain young. Even after relinquishing a Ring, however, you're still bound to it in a very profound way. Note how Bilbo reacts to the One Ring in Rivendell even twenty years later: it's like a compulsive addiction that one cannot ever be truly rid of.

Gollum, having worn the One Ring for hundreds of years, is very close to becoming completely enslaved to it in much the same way as the Nazgûl are to theirs. In fact, it's stated a few times that, in later years, he stopped wearing it so much because it was painful to him; he could feel himself slipping away and there was enough of his Hobbit spirit left that he still resisted. Regardless, he is so deeply bound to it that only its destruction is able to free him.

Bilbo had the Ring for far less time, and used it far less, so its hold on him is lighter. It's unclear if he would have ever died naturally had it not been destroyed, but I get the impression that he would. Gandalf believes that he will recover completely from its hold on his mind, since it was never strong to begin with, and it's logical that his body would respond the same way.

Edited in response to your edit: Tolkien may not have been above a bit of homoerotic subtext in his works, but there is absolutely no textual evidence that Déagol and Sméagol were lovers in the literal sense. I'm sure that doesn't stop the fanfic writers, though.

edited 28th Jun '17 12:54:28 PM by Fighteer

That kind of Homoerotic Subtext is in of itself Values Dissonance, since homosexuality was so far from (most) people's minds at the time that the kinds of deep friendships between men Tolkien wrote about were really just very deep friendships.

I'm mixed on this. I think I preferred Aragorn as a man that wanted to become king from the beginning. Too many heroes that are reluctant to grab power nowadays that it becomes a bit trite.

But if PJ had to give him a conflict, this was the best one to pick.

At least it makes narrative sense that Aragorn would be terrified of becoming the next Isildur and going Drunk with Power over the One Ring, or of restarting the horrible Kinslayer War that caused Gondor and Arnor to split in the first place.

Edited to add: Aragorn does go through Character Development, but it's all in backstory. He's well over ninety when he appears in Fellowship, and has already been to (and beyond) Mordor in his questing. He's fully developed into the heroic archetype by the time we first meet him. Before that, though, he does go through periods of angst over his heritage, finding comfort in the counsel of Elrond, and it's during one such period that he meets Arwen and pledges himself to her. This carries symmetry with the story of Beren and Luthien, not least because Aragorn initially believes the vision he sees to be Luthien. That and it's clearly a case of Fate tying up loose ends. It's one of those saccharine Predestined Love stories that fantasy writers just seem to adore.

I groaned in the films when Aragorn tries to reject Arwen's love because he doesn't want her to give up her immortality. Way to miss the whole point of that story, PJ. I don't mind so much that Elrond gets all pissy about it; that at least did happen textually, just quite a while prior to the events of the books.

edited 28th Jun '17 1:49:38 PM by Fighteer

Homoerotic Subtext was not really a thing, outside of a few specific authors, most of them rooted more in poetry and romantic novels, rather than the fantasy realms. Besides, Tolkien was a traditionalist Catholic and a man who went through hardships with his mates in WW 1, there's no way he would have indulged in that sort of subtext. Strong intimate male friendships were much more common back then than nowadays, especially in the army, so, it's best to not project the cultural sensibilities of our times to his times (that would be presentism, which is not a good thing when it comes to analyzing cultures in the more or less distant past).

edited 28th Jun '17 1:56:42 PM by Quag15

@518:

I'm not British myself, but according to Gunnerkrigg Court's Jenny's trope list "my love" is a common Southwest England mannerism. Tolkien being an Anglo-Saxon and English languages proffessor, it probably has some connection to it.

Ah right, that was what confused me. 'Cause yeah, there isn't anything particularly romantic in two men… you know… strangling each other to death…

edited 28th Jun '17 2:28:50 PM by Lyendith