Etholod
Member
In class, there has been an uncertainty about the reason for which Gandalf does not allow Bilbo to tell of his giving the Ring away. It has also been suggested that this reason is connected to the proof of the Ring's identity not being repeated before the Council. I have a theory as to this reason, and indeed they may be connected: There is never any reference to the difficulty, or even impossibility of harming or giving up the Ring during the council, except Isildurs "I will not risk harm to it", which is rather neutral and might just as easily reflect his grief over his fallen father and brother as possessiveness towards the Ring. If Bilbo had told of his troubles, or anyone had tried to cast the Ring into a brazier before the council, the incredible hold that the Ring has over its bearer would likely have become clear. I think it is not n any way a stretch for Gandalf to imagine that some if not most of the members would have lost the hope in the ultimate plan which Gandalf and Elrond want them to agree to. The task of bringing the Ring to Mordor seems almost impossible in itself, nobody expects the casting into the fire to be even more difficult. Boromir at least, I think, would never have gone along with the plan had he thought it must fail. Would Glóin? If, as I believe is rather likely, the point of the Council was chiefly to get everyone to realize that Mount Doom is the way that must be chosen, taking away any Amdir for the success of that quest is not a smart move. Elrond, Aragorn and Gandalf may have enough Estel to carry them, but the others might not. Boromir, in fact, does not, from what we see.
-Turambar of Many Names
Hey so I’ve got a question I’d like to hear some thoughts on. I’m a couple episodes behind on Exploring LOTR and I just listened to the one with the discussion about the word “cast” and its popular usage. I know it was discussed that Tolkien did not use it with the word “spell” in the D and D sense, but I think it still has a magical connection in its meaning. To “cast a spell” brings to my mind, not throwing a spell over someone, but forming one, much like it was discussed of casting metal. When I think “cast a spell” I think of someone channeling magical energy (the material) using either their mind or words or both (the mold). Therefore whatever spell is created, it is “cast” as in “formed.” Sorry, I know that’s a lot for a discussion from a month ago, but I wanted to hear your guys’ thoughts on that
-Camlost7
Finally a thought from me regarding portrayal and adaptation
As usual, Peter Jackson's films have, while not ruined, certainly clouded our views of the Council. In one of the recent discussions, Corey was discussing the difference between 'Book' Aragorn and 'Movie' Aragorn and the reverence paid to The Shards of Narsil. If you have heard Tom Shippey's talk on the PJ films, you will know that the general trend of the films was to Teenagerise. For example, Legolas surfing down Helm's Deep with his bow or his bringing down the Mumak at the Pelennor (in fact most of the egregious examples of 'Teenagerising' involve Legolas). But one instance where Peter Jackson does not 'Teenagerise' is this plotline with Aragorn. PJ makes the decision to make Aragorn unsure of his Kingship and pay the respect for Nasil under the auspices, perhaps of making him more appealing to the audience'. However, this doesn't seem to fit the general trend to 'teenagerise' the films. Why make this decision?. The answer maybe lies in another character Boromir. Transformed into the 'Gondor wants no King, Gondor needs no King' spouting character. Peter Jackson wanted to make Boromir into a traditional isolationist to present a foil for this message of unity. As usual in film-making, the characters become mere caricatures of the original text. But this still doesn't answer the question about Aragorn. Why insert that 'reverence', that unsurity, which goes against the trend of 'Teenagerising'. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions.
-Turambar of Many Names
Hey so I’ve got a question I’d like to hear some thoughts on. I’m a couple episodes behind on Exploring LOTR and I just listened to the one with the discussion about the word “cast” and its popular usage. I know it was discussed that Tolkien did not use it with the word “spell” in the D and D sense, but I think it still has a magical connection in its meaning. To “cast a spell” brings to my mind, not throwing a spell over someone, but forming one, much like it was discussed of casting metal. When I think “cast a spell” I think of someone channeling magical energy (the material) using either their mind or words or both (the mold). Therefore whatever spell is created, it is “cast” as in “formed.” Sorry, I know that’s a lot for a discussion from a month ago, but I wanted to hear your guys’ thoughts on that
-Camlost7
Finally a thought from me regarding portrayal and adaptation
As usual, Peter Jackson's films have, while not ruined, certainly clouded our views of the Council. In one of the recent discussions, Corey was discussing the difference between 'Book' Aragorn and 'Movie' Aragorn and the reverence paid to The Shards of Narsil. If you have heard Tom Shippey's talk on the PJ films, you will know that the general trend of the films was to Teenagerise. For example, Legolas surfing down Helm's Deep with his bow or his bringing down the Mumak at the Pelennor (in fact most of the egregious examples of 'Teenagerising' involve Legolas). But one instance where Peter Jackson does not 'Teenagerise' is this plotline with Aragorn. PJ makes the decision to make Aragorn unsure of his Kingship and pay the respect for Nasil under the auspices, perhaps of making him more appealing to the audience'. However, this doesn't seem to fit the general trend to 'teenagerise' the films. Why make this decision?. The answer maybe lies in another character Boromir. Transformed into the 'Gondor wants no King, Gondor needs no King' spouting character. Peter Jackson wanted to make Boromir into a traditional isolationist to present a foil for this message of unity. As usual in film-making, the characters become mere caricatures of the original text. But this still doesn't answer the question about Aragorn. Why insert that 'reverence', that unsurity, which goes against the trend of 'Teenagerising'. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions.