Reading the Chunksters discussion

Please discuss the beginning of the second volume below!

This is probably my favorite of the three volumes. I am always amazed by how much more time we spend getting to know the Uruk-hai and Orcs. It had been a while since I last read these, and one of the first things I was struck by was that they actually have individual names. I don't know if they just don't really say them in the films, or if they're just not as frequently used, but I never remember them. I always look at them in the movies as a group that makes up one character together "the orcs," but in the book they seem so much more distinct.

I also enjoy the sense of rivalry between the different groups of Orcs. They aren't all fans of one another, but they still work together toward the same general purpose. That's a nice mirror for what's going on with our heroes as well. They aren't necessarily from races that normally associate or get along (such as with the Dwarves and Elves), but they still work together for a common purpose.

I also enjoy the fact that we follow the journeys of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas and Pippin and Merry first. It leaves a lot more suspense that we don't know what's happened to Frodo and Sam when they're the ones with the real mission at hand.

Michelle wrote: "I also enjoy the sense of rivalry between the different groups of Orcs. They aren't all fans of one another, but they still work together toward the same general purpose. That's a nice mirror for what's going on with our heroes as well. They aren't necessarily from races that normally associate or get along (such as with the Dwarves and Elves), but they still work together for a common purpose."

A very astute observation that has never occurred to me. I think it is great that even though the orcs are completely detestable he still treats them as individuals, which I think is good. It is too easy to look at the enemy and not realize they are distinct and in human cases, not necessarily all bad.

Michelle wrote: "I also enjoy the fact that we follow the journeys of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas and Pippin and Merry first. It leaves a lot more suspense that we don't know what's happened to Frodo and Sam when they're the ones with the real mission at hand."

I think this is a love it or leave it aspect of his style. I like it and I am glad it doesn't bother you but I've heard of people who hate it.

I've been saving this comment for this section because technically it occurs in this reading.

Before the movies, I never liked Boromir or found him to be a sympathetic character. The arrogant and prideful side of his nature so repulsed me that I could never see the noble side even though Tolkien tells us it exists and even describes it.

For all the issues I do have with the movies, I still love them and among the many reasons I love them is that they made me appreciate Boromir. Sean Bean did an incredible job of portraying him and revealing the compassionate side that battled with his heart to save his people no matter the cost (which was arrogant and prideful in many instances).

From the sword-teaching lesson before the Crebain scour the land and they must hide, to his care for the Hobbits when climbing Caradhras, to the way he holds them back when Gandalf falls and wants to let them grieve when they escape Mordor to the way he handles the scene when he tries to steal the ring and then repents, Bean made me love and feel for Boromir in the way I think Tolkien intended.

I would agree with your assessment of Boromir. He doesn't feel like someone you really want to relate to and like in the novel, but Sean Bean brought such warmth and compassion to his character. He still has his faults, but he admits to and regrets them. Boromir is heroic in his way, but he definitlely gives us a close up view of how men are corrupted by the ring.

I'm finally trying to catch up. Sorry for being a bad moderator all--life really REALLY got in the way.

My thoughts on this first section below:

- I agree completely that Boromir came across as far more sympathetic in the movies. I don't know that the character was arrogant per se--rather, I think my issue was with the fact that he really wasn't given all that much to do. We never really got to know him. He didn't even really have that much dialogue, other than his big speech with the creation of the Fellowship, and his confrontation with Frodo. Whereas, in the movie, Sean Bean really brought him to life.

Speaking of which, have any of you read A Game of Thrones? I've just read the first one, but man, I'm excited for the HBO series. Sean Bean plays the lead. :D

- I'm impressed with how much Merry and Pippin grow as characters so quickly in this book. They're able to fool Grishnakh with the promise of getting him the ring, and then they are able to escape the Orcs. I know their escape was at least partially luck, as Grishnakh gets killed by an error of the men of Rohan, but they really did take their fate into their hands. It really reminds me of the main lesson of The Hobbit, which seemed to me that people, when confronted with trying times, will surprise the heck out of you.

I like the thoughts on Boromir as well. It's hard to remember what my original impression of him was, as I've seen the movies so many times and find him sympathetic and very lifelike in those, but I vaguely remember a dissatisfied feeling with him on first encounter. As was stated, we never really got the chance to know him in the books, whereas the movie is able to give more depth to his character.

And I love how Merry and Pippin handle their situation! They get a chance here to really branch out and become their own part of the story. Of course, the dedication of the other more "warrior" types to find them is admirable as well.