If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   LotR true meaning revealed. Well not today. Certainly not in this long-winded article   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 146
    More: Cool, Tolkien, Tolkienesque, One Ring, farewell speech, pipes, tobacco company  
•       •       •

7904 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2014 at 8:56 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-23 12:21:16 AM
Yeah, WTF.

"It's so great, just wait until you hear it."

And then a stupid "trailer" for the speech.

Are we to assume they are going to try to sell it? Or use the restoration funds for personal purposes? If not, why not just publish a transcript now and then restore the audio and release it?

This article should be classified as an advertisement.
 
2014-05-23 12:25:23 AM
Well that was a terrible waste of time. Guess I can't say I wasn't duly warned up front, though...
 
2014-05-23 08:45:37 AM
 
2014-05-23 09:01:09 AM
*spoiler*

it is about a hobbit
 
2014-05-23 09:02:19 AM
I thought it was an excuse for Tolkien to make up a fictional language.
 
2014-05-23 09:02:35 AM
The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them....
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit...  
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

J.R.R. Tolkien on the "true meaning" of the Lord of the Rings

/its the foreword in every farking edition, people.
 
2014-05-23 09:03:06 AM

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: Well that was a terrible waste of time. Guess I can't say I wasn't duly warned up front, though...


It's Huffpo, I read the words in Eva Gabor's voice and had a great time
 
2014-05-23 09:03:17 AM
Double assholery here. First, the guy who sat on it for 20 years. Why do people do that? How much of a cock do you have to be to just keep something like that to yourself? You're not Smaug, dude, you're just an arsehole. Second, tfa author not delivering the promised explanation. F. U.
 
2014-05-23 09:07:36 AM

sprawl15: *spoiler*

it is about a hobbit


Who just walks into Mordor.
 
2014-05-23 09:07:41 AM
I thought Lord of the Rings was fantastic, and then I read Game of Thrones, and realized how boring LotR really is.
 
2014-05-23 09:08:44 AM
I always thought it had to due with drug addiction.
 
2014-05-23 09:09:32 AM

InterruptingQuirk: Epic Pooh by Michael Moorcock


I have always been unable to tell how much of that essay was reasonable political criticism and how much was whiny green-eyed jealousy.  I like Moorcock, but so much of that essay sounds like it came from the mouth of the really unpopular goth kid griping that that the slightly more popular band kid is a shallow sell out.

/Also the revision adding Rowling as an example of someone good who doesn't retreat to old themes of good vs evil, doesn't rely on eucastrophe, doesn't wrap itself in cosy comfortable old timey-ness is farking ridiculous - it undercuts so much of his point its hilarious.
 
2014-05-23 09:11:04 AM
Long-winded, slowly paced article about Lord of the Rings which wanders about for a long time rather than get straight to the point and still doesn't resolve the fundamental question?

Gotta give it to the article writer, he knows his goddamn audience.
 
2014-05-23 09:12:09 AM

Teiritzamna: The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them....
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit...  
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
J.R.R. Tolkien on the "true meaning" of the Lord of the Rings

/its the foreword in every farking edition, people.


Very much this.  The article itself then quotes "To know things they break them"  I'd like to think that's consistent with what he's said previously.
 
2014-05-23 09:12:09 AM
It was about the industrial revolution and the end of rural innocence.
 
2014-05-23 09:12:23 AM
Actual transcription follows:


"No, it isn't f***in Hitler, you wankers. Stop asking me that! Where's my beer?..."
 
2014-05-23 09:13:31 AM
Oh my god. Who cares.
 
2014-05-23 09:15:11 AM
Jesus, did Peter Jackson write that?
 
2014-05-23 09:15:46 AM
A much more succinct explanation (NSFW language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSB03lr69iU
 
2014-05-23 09:16:46 AM
When lotr first came out (the movies) I said there is no way I'm going to wait a year between sequels so didn't watch.

Then when all three were out, I said I don't have time to spend 9 hours watching this.

:/
 
2014-05-23 09:20:04 AM
Well, you know the author was a Tolkein fan.  He rambles for ages without giving any resolutions and embellishing details no one cares about.  Somewhere around page 10 of the article he'll finish telling you who is in attendance.
 
2014-05-23 09:20:53 AM

Resident Muslim: When lotr first came out (the movies) I said there is no way I'm going to wait a year between sequels so didn't watch.

Then when all three were out, I said I don't have time to spend 9 hours watching this.

:/


If you cut out the walking montages they're only 6 hours.  I'm waiting for that to be a special edition of the movie.
 
2014-05-23 09:21:58 AM

Resident Muslim: When lotr first came out (the movies) I said there is no way I'm going to wait a year between sequels so didn't watch.

Then when all three were out, I said I don't have time to spend 9 hours watching this.

:/


I'm surprised you have time to post here!

/agrees with you
//didn't watch the Hobbits for the same reason
 
2014-05-23 09:23:57 AM

Cymbal: I thought Lord of the Rings was fantastic, and then I read Game of Thrones, and realized how boring LotR really is.


1. There probably isn't a GoT without LotR. Tolkien helped create the genre, or the modern revival of the genre if you prefer.
2. As I understand, Tolkien initially wrote the stories for a weekly story-telling session that he did for his students, and he was basically making up the plot on the fly - and all while he still had a day job. GRR Martin had years to write and polish each of the novels.
 
2014-05-23 09:24:55 AM
I know a guy who is convinced that LOTR is a secret handbook for how to ultimately take down the Illuminati.

No joke. Dude is schizophrenic as hell.
 
2014-05-23 09:27:18 AM

Resident Muslim: When lotr first came out (the movies) I said there is no way I'm going to wait a year between sequels so didn't watch.

Then when all three were out, I said I don't have time to spend 9 hours watching this.

:/


I watched the first, and found that it confirmed my prejudice that many novels should not be converted to movies. That's jmho, though. I prefer movies that were original scripts. That way I can enjoy the movie without hating the director/producer/screenwriter/actor(s) etc. for their interpretation of a favorite novel.
 
2014-05-23 09:27:52 AM
This N****** ritecheer is da truth fuhreal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oU0PtX85DY
 
2014-05-23 09:29:00 AM

Crewmannumber6: A much more succinct explanation (NSFW language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSB03lr69iU


Came for Clerks 2 leaving happy.  One of the best movies ever if you don't mind crude humor.
 
2014-05-23 09:29:38 AM
It warns of a dystopian future world where nobody can farking read?
 
2014-05-23 09:31:19 AM

Arkanaut: Cymbal: I thought Lord of the Rings was fantastic, and then I read Game of Thrones, and realized how boring LotR really is.

1. There probably isn't a GoT without LotR. Tolkien helped create the genre, or the modern revival of the genre if you prefer.
2. As I understand, Tolkien initially wrote the stories for a weekly story-telling session that he did for his students, and he was basically making up the plot on the fly - and all while he still had a day job. GRR Martin had years to write and polish each of the novels.


Yes, agreed. Neither of those facts make it less boring though.
 
2014-05-23 09:31:58 AM
Jesus Christ it's about loyalty, perseverance and not losing sight of the goal in moments of fear and delirium.

Or no, wait.. It was about sexy hairy feet.
 
2014-05-23 09:32:39 AM
who really is the lord of the rings tho

is it frodo

or sauron

it is a mystery
 
2014-05-23 09:35:15 AM

crypticsatellite: Yeah, WTF.

"It's so great, just wait until you hear it."

And then a stupid "trailer" for the speech.

Are we to assume they are going to try to sell it? Or use the restoration funds for personal purposes? If not, why not just publish a transcript now and then restore the audio and release it?

This article should be classified as an advertisement.



i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-23 09:36:36 AM

mutterfark: Resident Muslim: When lotr first came out (the movies) I said there is no way I'm going to wait a year between sequels so didn't watch.

Then when all three were out, I said I don't have time to spend 9 hours watching this.

:/

I watched the first, and found that it confirmed my prejudice that many novels should not be converted to movies. That's jmho, though. I prefer movies that were original scripts. That way I can enjoy the movie without hating the director/producer/screenwriter/actor(s) etc. for their interpretation of a favorite novel.


I had been meaning to get around to LOTR since high school. Knowing the ratio of book to movie greatness, I decided to finally read the books when they announced the movie deal.

So I read them. It was a little bit of a struggle since the older I've gotten, I've found I care less and less for fiction and more for actual history. But the books were epic, so I plowed through the whole set.

Then when the first movie came out, I felt seriously gypped out of three hours for something that was only a quarter as good as the book. That was the only one I'd seen until Desolation a few months ago.
 
2014-05-23 09:38:32 AM

sprawl15: who really is the lord of the rings tho

is it frodo

or sauron

it is a mystery


None of the above. It's the Icy Hot Stuntaz.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-23 09:38:41 AM
I'm waiting for the Atlas Shrugged Trilogy remake of LotR -- so precious, yet objective.
 
2014-05-23 09:39:46 AM

Arkanaut: Cymbal: I thought Lord of the Rings was fantastic, and then I read Game of Thrones, and realized how boring LotR really is.

1. There probably isn't a GoT without LotR. Tolkien helped create the genre, or the modern revival of the genre if you prefer.
2. As I understand, Tolkien initially wrote the stories for a weekly story-telling session that he did for his students, and he was basically making up the plot on the fly - and all while he still had a day job. GRR Martin had years to write and polish each of the novels.


Number 2 is not true.  He re-wrote Book One five or six times before settling on the underlying premise of the entire work.  Then he pretty much wrote the rest.  He did show his continuing work to a group of colleagues called the Inklings, though.

Anyway, LOTR is not about filling in the details of a world.  It is meant to be an epic adventure following only a few people.
 
2014-05-23 09:44:44 AM

Cymbal: Yes, agreed. Neither of those facts make it less boring though.


I hear this complaint a lot about LotR.....usually in the same breath that people use to tell me how great Harry Potter or Hunger Games are.

/not that there's anything wrong with liking Harry Potter or Hunger Games
 
2014-05-23 09:45:03 AM

Teiritzamna: InterruptingQuirk: Epic Pooh by Michael Moorcock

I have always been unable to tell how much of that essay was reasonable political criticism and how much was whiny green-eyed jealousy.  I like Moorcock, but so much of that essay sounds like it came from the mouth of the really unpopular goth kid griping that that the slightly more popular band kid is a shallow sell out.

/Also the revision adding Rowling as an example of someone good who doesn't retreat to old themes of good vs evil, doesn't rely on eucastrophe, doesn't wrap itself in cosy comfortable old timey-ness is farking ridiculous - it undercuts so much of his point its hilarious.


What I always took away from that is that the myth that there was ever a time our history where people existed in an agrarian utopia where nobody worked the fields, food was plenty and everybody was happy in their station in life despite only ever hearing of the people who had interesting stations in life and were not locked to the land they lived on and could travel and have adventures, never existed.(sentence)

I read it back in the early nineties before the additions you speak of, and haven't reread it since. Anybody that has watched the Tolkien films, minus the animated Hobbit the Japanese did, with an objective eye know how tedious and droll these books are. Please! Let us hear about people walking some more!
 
2014-05-23 09:47:31 AM
"Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."
-Mark Twain, Introductory Note to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
 
2014-05-23 09:54:14 AM
Cerebral Ballsy:

I had been meaning to get around to LOTR since high school. Knowing the ratio of book to movie greatness, I decided to finally read the books when they announced the movie deal.

So I read them. It was a little bit of a struggle since the older I've gotten, I've found I care less and less for fiction and more for actual history. But the books were epic, so I plowed through the whole set.

Then when the first movie came out, I felt seriously gypped out of three hours for something that was only a quarter as good as the book. That was the only one I'd seen until Desolation a few months ago.


I imagine that, for many who don't read a lot, the movies were probably awesome. Sadly I have a flaw that I cannot watch a movie of a novel without getting pissed at the creative liberties. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on the subject, and I have heard decent arguments from directors/producers on why I'm wrong, but I still (probably) won't watch any of the 'Hobbit' movies either. Oh well, fortunately for Peter Jackson, most people are sane.;)
 
2014-05-23 09:54:53 AM
well, i thought the meaning was rather clear.

but, more importantly, i don't care what an author thinks his work to be about.  it's about what it's about.  you can't change what you've done after the fact.
 
2014-05-23 09:57:06 AM
The ring is a symbol of mechanical technology, and the evil it conveys is the forced reorganization of society around industrial production -- i.e., Communism and Fascism.

Elves are artists.  Hobbits are farmers.  Dwarves are craftsmen and builders.  Mechanization turns these vibrant, creative people into twisted, violent slaves.

Pretty simple, really.  Not exactly hidden meaning.

/Except for the anti-Illuminati coded messages
//That part's hidden, of course
 
2014-05-23 10:05:20 AM
Mostly all I got out of it was "Bad people suck, good people are awesome".
 
2014-05-23 10:05:59 AM

sendtodave: sprawl15: *spoiler*

it is about a hobbit

Who just walks into Mordor.


media.panjury.com
 
2014-05-23 10:09:29 AM
The true reason for the entire series was to setup for the planned sequel because Tom Bombadil is evil.

And Bombadil will dance down amongst them, clad in his true shape at last, singing his incomprehensible rhymes as the trees mutter their curses and the black and terrible Barrow-Wights dance and gibber around him. And he will be smiling.
 
2014-05-23 10:12:20 AM
What was he tolkien about?
 
2014-05-23 10:13:46 AM

crypticsatellite: Yeah, WTF.

"It's so great, just wait until you hear it."

And then a stupid "trailer" for the speech.

Are we to assume they are going to try to sell it? Or use the restoration funds for personal purposes? If not, why not just publish a transcript now and then restore the audio and release it?

This article should be classified as an advertisement.


"Use this one weird trick to understand LoTR"
 
2014-05-23 10:17:36 AM

Phinn: The ring is a symbol of mechanical technology, and the evil it conveys is the forced reorganization of society around industrial production -- i.e., Communism and Fascism.

Elves are artists.  Hobbits are farmers.  Dwarves are craftsmen and builders.  Mechanization turns these vibrant, creative people into twisted, violent slaves.

Pretty simple, really.  Not exactly hidden meaning.

/Except for the anti-Illuminati coded messages
//That part's hidden, of course


I don't think you are too far off the mark, but Industrial Production is just a tool for accumulating Treasure.  Treasure, and the concentration of power that comes from the accumulation of Treasure is the evil.

As long as the other groups have no love for accumulation, everything stays in balance.
 
2014-05-23 10:18:28 AM

InterruptingQuirk: Anybody that has watched the Tolkien films, minus the animated Hobbit the Japanese did, with an objective eye know how tedious and droll these books are.


so.....the books are boring because the films are boring? Is that what you're trying to say?

/also I'm not sure you know what the word "droll" means
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report