Lord of the Rings

Frodo had been carrying the ring for months, it wore him down. Sam was able to resist because he wasn't.

Another question: Gollum. Just how did he manage to survive after Bilbo stole the Ring? Shouldn't he have died soon afterwards? He was going on 500 or so, and the ring was sustaining him. When Bilbo gave the ring to Frodo, he started to age. Gollum didn't.

@Medicus I haven't read the books or any related expository materials in a while, but going on a completely half-assed line of thought, I figure that Gollum had been in possession of the ring for so long that it had imbued him with a part of its essence, to the point where once it was taken away, he would only age rather slowly. In Bilbo's case, the Ring had been sustaining him, but it hadn't been with him long enough to do more than that.

edited 22nd Dec '10 11:59:39 PM by QuantumFerret

It was likely either a residual effect of having carried the Ring for so long OR his twisted desire to reclaim it sustained him. Both explanations fit well with the story, if I do say so myself.

I figured the Ring's anti-aging effect was more a pause in one's natual lifecycle than extending natural life. Meaning if you were in possession of the One Ring you would have your biological age paused for the duration you had it and then when you get rid of it (whichever means that doesn't involve dying) you biologically pick up where you left off.

Now the bizarre corruptions and mutations of the mind and body? Yeah that's just bad magic doing its thing.

I think I prefer your explanation to mine. It makes sense.

I think what Major Tom said is actually supported by the text, too.

It's a win for everyone! Huzzah!

Am I the only one who prefers the stories from the First Age the the actual Lord of the Rings/Hobbit?

EDIT: The angst about being King they give Aragorn in the films is incredibly irritating.

edited 28th Dec '10 12:17:27 PM by Wagrid

Eh...the First Age is better in some respects, but too much of a Downer Ending for me to enjoy. I liked the elves a lot more than the humans.

I have an IRL friend who collected the entire History of Middle-Earth series but couldn't get into Lord of the Rings at all, so no, you're not the only one.

You're not alone. I also prefer the First Age stories over the more popular Lord Of The Rings and Hobbit. Perhaps for a strange reason — overall, I found the cast of characters and their individual stories to be more interesting when compared to LotR.

edited 28th Dec '10 12:38:26 PM by apassingthought

Some of the First Age stories are memorable. I remember there were certain parts of The Silmarillion I read many times.

Overall, though, I think LOTR is more fun.

Can't you enjoy both of them, equally, for different reasons?

That's fair. I haven't read them in a while, so it's silly of me to criticize them.

I still love The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit to pieces of course, but the First Age has this really awesome feeling of myth to it, and it's where the influences from traditional mythology are at their most prelevant in my opinion.

In a way I might prefer the First Age writings. They have a different sort of style to them the way they are written. One that feels closer to Biblical texts. I am very fond of writing like that. It's very mythy. The stories are interesting and memorable too.

Lot R on the other hand feels more like an epic poem, but in prose format with lots and lots of scenery descriptions. And I love the shit out of such things. Lot R also happens to be amazing. So I might prefer Lot R.

The Hobbit though related to Lot R is entirely different tone and style wise from it and the First Age writings. It has accessibility and nostalgia on its side.

I'm not really sure which I prefer. It changes a lot it seems...

edited 29th Dec '10 1:11:49 AM by Aondeug

I like all of them.

I don't think anyone has said they don't like all of them.

You know what are fucking spectacular? Alan Lee's illustrations. I recently replaced my old battered copies with ones with his illustrations are they're awesome.

A bit of Fridge Logic moment when it comes to the Númenóreans.

So, one of the signs that Ar-Pharazôn is an evil bastard is that he marries his cousin. Against her will, but that's not the part I'm getting at.

The part that bugs me is Ar-Pharazôn is evil because he marries his cousin. Tolkien wasn't a historian but he knew his stuff. Marriages between (first) cousins was common in nobility, especially rulers. Hell, Queen Victoria? Every royal in Europe? This is basic stuff here.

Europeans did. The Edain didn't, possibly picking up their aversion to it from the elves (it wasn't accepted with Maeglin in Gondolin either).

He wasn't considered evil just because he forced his cousin into a marriage. You know, there's also that thing where he instituted a Religion of Evil and tried to take over Aman, among other reasons.

Though, it is interesting to note that the newest (unfinished) telling of that story had Miriel willingly entering the marriage to her cousin.

One of the signs. The guy was a fucking froot loop.

I just thought it was odd that marrying his cousin was considered an evil act, where in a comparable situation in the real world, this was kind of expected.

But that question's been answered — the Elves did it, and You Cant Argue With Elves.

(Of course you can in LOTR, they're no where near infallible. Something I've always liked.)

And yet they manage to be the primary inspiration of quite a few you can't argue with elves elves. Looking at you Eragon!

edited 18th Jan '11 5:38:26 AM by Wagrid

That. I don't get why all the Tolkien ripoffs inspirées make SO SUPER AWESOME elves when Tolkien didn't. The elves are the worst thing about The Inheritance Cycle.

I never cared for the super awesome elves. I liked Tolkien's the best. They were certainly very wise and powerful but they were by no means perfect. They were often too arrogant and proud for their own good. They could be corrupted by power and often did amazingly dickish things. The Kin Slaying for example. I liked his elves because while they were strong they were flawed and in a way that fucked them in the ass at times. That and their culture, language, and history is pretty fucking cool.

edited 19th Jan '11 6:53:10 PM by Aondeug

I think the perception of Tolkien's elves being oh-so-perfect comes from an incomplete picture. After all, most people have only read (or, nowadays, watched) The Lord Of The Rings, where we have Elrond the wise adviser, Orlando Bloom Legolas the skilled archer, and Arwen the Love Interest. The most we see is a glimpse of Galadriel's power-hungry side. Other than that, no vengeful, kinslaying, silmaril-crazed, incest-craving, or even rebellious daughter elves to be found here.

edited 19th Jan '11 7:46:18 PM by apassingthought