The Unseen Servant forums

“It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were... But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.” -Samwise Gamgee, The Two Towers




Inspiration and Source Material:

I devoured all the Tolkien books in middle school and high school and then never looked back. Went on to other fare and darker, which I thought was older and cooler and less goody two-shoes than Tolkien's high fantasy. But rereading his stuff for this game has given me a new appreciation for his genius, his resonance and his outlook.

When I write for my Lovecraft D&D game, I walk away feeling that doom and gloom (which can be enjoyable in a perverse way). But when I write for this Tolkien game, I always leave in a splendid mood. Like I'm channeling his optimism through this pastiche.

So anyway, that's all. Wanted to tell someone about this dynamic, and figured you might relate. Thanks for listening. And for playing. Have a great night!

For me his optimism is what sets him apart from so many other authors. His friend C.S. Lewis is in the same category in that regard. Of course the fact they were effectively editors for each other may have something to do with it.

My wife and I are rereading LOTR again, both of us for the first time in about 8-12 years. Each time I read it, I'm newly surprised at how awestruck the prose reads. The simple wonderment of walking the hills and meeting friends is as powerful as the story itself.

A new thing that struck me this time around was how good Tolkien was at writing about food. The quiet comforts of a good meal or drink among friends isn't just one of the most important parts of the story, it's also a powerful source of the magic of the Age. If LOTR were written today I fear it would have read like a hipster food blog; but Tolkien manages to share his love of dining without making it feel at all decadent.

Good point, Rex.

Starbeard: I agree. All those small human moments, gardening, eating, drinking, walking in nature, talking, birthday parties, all that hobbit foolishness that I didn't enjoy as a teen or young adult, really resonate now. They also ground the story and offer a contrast to the fantastic heroic elements that makes them more epic. I used to ignore the Scouring of the Shire chapter, as did Peter Jackson, but now it really brings everything full circle by landing it right back at home.

I wonder if the best possible time to read an author's work is at the age they were when they wrote it.
Read Robert E. Howard in your 20s.
Michael Moorcock in your 20s and 30s.
Lovecraft in your 30s and 40s.
Tolkien in your 40s and 50s.
And one could probably safely err on the side of being older than them, given their genius!

I might have to go back and re-read The Scouring of the Shire. When I read it in high school, that part felt like Tolkien had just tacked it on, and that it was pointless.

You may be right about age and its perspective Inferno. The Scouring of the Shire, is key to the story as Inferno said, it brings things full circle. I liked the movies and they were good but he chopped out much of the important stuff that really make the story. Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire are just 2 examples.

Urson wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:42 pm I might have to go back and re-read The Scouring of the Shire. When I read it in high school, that part felt like Tolkien had just tacked it on, and that it was pointless.

And when you're done, have a look at Ogre Mage's game of the same name.

Reminds me of this art I just saw yesterday:

Oops didn’t see you had parsed out the scouring of the Shire posts. But that’s what the above art is from.

Just moved them.

Nice art.

AFA Tom Bombadil- I would have liked to see him show up, also. But to have him presented in a way that didn't look weird, random, and out of place in the movie would have taken a lot of exposition. I can see why he wasn't included. At the time, I opined that he would have needed his own movie.

Perhaps. I think they got the number of movies backward between the Hobbit and LOTR. The Hobbit should have been 2 (at most) and LOTR should have been 6, matching up with the 6 books that make up the LOTR.

And The Hobbit should have come first. LOTR is a tough act to follow, especially for a children's book.

All right, I'm clearly in the minority in this group in that I have not read LotR. I started, but couldn't get through the first book. One thing I found to be quite annoying (ok, two things- the eleven poetry/ songs I eventually just skipped) was Tom Bombadil. It is quite possible that I didn't get far enough to where he would have been less annoying, but I was happy he wasn't in the movies.

You're not that far alone. The movies were a hundred times better than the books . I've read the books but have no desire to read them again to be honest. I do appreciate the sheer volume of detail that has been put into the whole history and backstory which is pretty epic.

Scott308 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:37 am All right, I'm clearly in the minority in this group in that I have not read LotR.

First, you hate Star Trek the Original Series. And now this?!
It's a good thing you're so damn likable.

ravenn4544 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:17 pm You're not that far alone. The movies were a hundred times better than the books . I've read the books but have no desire to read them again to be honest.

If you haven't read them in 20-30 years, you might give it a try.

that's fair - it's been at least that long since I read them

Tom is absolutely my favorite part of the books. Sometimes I'll have the hankering to read just his chapter. It's the same with The Wind in the Willows, and the chapter "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn." I have a soft spot for those chapters where the story unexpectedly falls away when you least expect it, and instead there's this long reverential moment where the characters witness the profound pagan rites of the dawn of time, but they can't be understood and so everyone's just left bewildered by the whole thing.

I used to find the poetry pretty dull and immersion-shattering, but since then I've become professionally obliged to read quite a lot of ancient and medieval literature, which is pretty much nothing but poetry. Now that I've been inundated, I don't find the inclusion of poetry hokey anymore. In fact, I get a kick out of following the metric forms and seeing which type of medieval verse he chose to emulate here or there. It helps me feel immersed in the idea that I'm reading an account of a living tradition, that uses song and rhyme in a way that disappeared from our own cultures long ago.

As for the movies, I do think it would've been better to have The Hobbit first.

I also think LOTR would have been best served as a Prime Time TV show. It never would've happened of course: the 2004 Battlestar Galactica was still around the corner, which proved that a multi-season, arc-driven, HBO-style fantasy show could work. In 1997-2001 no one would have financed a 4-6 year contract for a high budget LOTR show. And no one will finance one now because we already have the movies, and big budget TV has gone toward the streaming format, where TV shows are sold as finished packages, not as contract deals. No one would produce a faithful adaptation of LOTR hoping that they'll get paid for it after it's done.

If I had my way, I'd have it as a 50-episode Event, like the Japanese Taiga Dramas. Show an episode every Sunday, throughout the whole year, until the story's done.