Middle-earth Journeys
It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door…You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.
Airwin, at the risk of getting into a book vs movie discussion here (and our purpose is to discuss Tolkien not Peter Jackson's interpretation), I would have to disagree a wee bit about Aragorn. Tolkien's Aragorn has fully accepted his heritage and his rights (powers) and responsibilities. He is confident in the knowledge that his life has purpose and destiny. It is only Peter Jackson's interpretation of Aragorn that has him indecisive and reluctant.Airwin wrote:Riv Res, I would agree with the categorization of the LOTR fellowship, although I think Aragorn might also fit in the Analyzer category, since he didn't really want to rule anyone. (It would be fun to explore this further, perhaps separate from the Narnia discussion?)
I remembered the reason for his travels prior to finding Gollum for Gandalf was in part to come to terms with his heritage and destiny, but perhaps I remembered wrong. I do realize the book Aragorn is not the same as the movie Aragorn is portrayed. But still it wouldn't hurt for me to read the books again! 
I felt the same way, Kirill, when I re-read the Narnia books again recently after more than forty years. My ten-year-old self loved the books but to me, they're simply not in the same league as Tolkien!Kirill Leonov wrote: I guess those books have an appeal to younger children, but to me they had none, not after Tolkien, which just was "the real thing" to me.
I really disliked that preaching, moralising tone Lewis takes at times, and that all is drawn in black and white (and Edmund gets to be first black, then white, which really doesn't change the black and white at all).
). Nicely made, but not a world that draws me in. It lacks that inner logic that should hold a good fantasy world together. For my taste, if you want magic in a fantasy world, you should define its rules, so to say, if you get my meaning. If you want talking animals, make them into an actual species with culture and stuff. And for the Valar's sake, if you want children being superheroes, explain where they got their bloody powers!!! Besides, a world without humans isn't such a good idea because the reader just can't relate that well. It's just liek George Lucas said: even for a very remote sci-fi film you need elements people will recognise and are able to relate to, or else it just seems strange and abstract and has no effect at all (also where Stanley Kubrick went wrong with his Clockwork Orange adaption, in my opinion: he edited all the "natural" stuff out and sort of made it very strange, so that one totally can't relate anymore...).I've heard of Astrid Lindgren but I don't think I've read any of her books. I think one of the reasons I find Lewis's Narnia tales so disappointing as an adult is their lack of depth, and the absence of any real warmth. Even Tolkien's simplest tales have a richness - because of his wonderful sense of humour, the underlying mythology present in most of his work, and the way he introduced word-play and subjects which interested him even when he was writing outside of his mythology.Kirill Leonov wrote:Marbretherese, I don't know if you know Astrid Lindgren's "Brothers Lionheart".
)