This week's questions were:
1. What was your initial thoughts of Strider/Aragorn when Hobbits met up with him in The Prancing Pony? Did you think that he was linked with the Riders?I don't remember anymore, to be honest. My response these days is to remember that Tolkien notes in his letters and the early drafts that apparently he didn't know who Strider was. IIRC, he was originally a hobbit named Trotter!
2.What was the biggest surprised to you during this section of the Fellowship of the Ring?This is another question where I'm going to have to say "I don't remember".
3.Do you like that Tolkien goes in depth and tells the readers of the history events of the war that is upon the Fellowship?That's one of the things I absolutely love about Tolkien's writings. That and all the little untold hints he leaves throughout the books.
4. How far do you think you would have lasted if you were Frodo and nearly becoming a Rider?Probably nowhere near as long as he did.
5. As dangerous quest unfold to become, the other hobbits want to stick by Frodo til the end. Would you sacrifice yourself and stick with Frodo til the end?I'd like to think I would but unfortunately to be honest, probably not.
8 comments:
Hobbits have got to me made of sterner stuff than us, because I'd have lasted about 5 minutes after getting stabbed by a black rider, and if my buddy said "I'm going on a quest into someplace horrible, and we'll probably all die. . . wanna come?" I'd probably ask what Navy Seals were coming with us.
LOL, that could be a funny mash up YouTube: if Frodo was a Navy Seal!
That could be funny - the thought is making me both cringe and laugh at the same time. Thanks for that, redhead.
I too think the historical parts and the little details here are there are a big strength of these stories. They give it the kind depth and richness that authors strive to achieve.
And that's where Tolkien really succeeded. Thanks for dropping in with a comment, Carl.
You are welcome, I never shy away from talking about J.R.R. Tolkien. :)
I am with Carl as well. It seemed that Tolkien kew when to drop in the historical tidbits at the precise time the the book. So that it did not seem dry, but wanting to reader to know more about how the past was in Middle Earth.
And it makes an interesting contrast to the films, where that history was able to be put in a prologue and also shown through conversations and flashbacks. I liked it and it worked on screen.
I'm glad Tolkien didn't take that route with the books, though, as it works much better in the written format the way he did it.
I certainly like it, but I've heard a lot of complaints that it makes the story too slow, too much detail and the like. Of course, I'm a history buff anyway.
Post a Comment