|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 21 2016, 1:48pm
Post #1 of 20
(1318 views)
Shortcut
|
Have you ever read LOTR in strict time sequence?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I mean, skipping back and forth between chapters after the Fellowship breaks up so you're keeping up with what everyone is doing at about the same time, instead of reading all of the first volume of The Two Towers and then backtracking to start up with Sam & Frodo way back in the Emyn Muil?
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Apr 21 2016, 10:08pm)
|
|
|
Nuradar
Rohan
Apr 21 2016, 2:15pm
Post #2 of 20
(1243 views)
Shortcut
|
In fact, I've never even considered it! What a neat idea. I'm not sure if I'll try it the next time I read them, but I'm definitely giving it some thought.... Has anyone else done this? How does it compare to reading the books as they are laid out? I'm interested in knowing what it's like by someone who has read them this way.
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Apr 21 2016, 2:23pm
Post #3 of 20
(1241 views)
Shortcut
|
Doh! I misread the question and voted "always" instead of "never:"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Does someone have a chapter listing in chronological order if I decide to give it a go?
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 21 2016, 2:59pm
Post #5 of 20
(1232 views)
Shortcut
|
It does make the story a bit choppy as you're always jumping around from one place to another . . . but then, that's what the movies do too, so maybe it won't be as weird for those who saw the movies first. I enjoyed it. I have read LOTR many times and doing this gave me a different perspective.
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Apr 21 2016, 6:34pm
Post #6 of 20
(1222 views)
Shortcut
|
Good grief. That's a lot of skipping around.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd much rather do it by whole chapters. I tend to get lost in the story when I'm reading Tolkien, and I'm sure I'd "miss my exit" repeatedly if I tried to follow that plan.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Apr 21 2016, 10:08pm
Post #7 of 20
(1198 views)
Shortcut
|
I've edited the poll so that your vote is recorded correctly. :) /
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Apr 23 2016, 3:36am)
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Apr 22 2016, 2:29am
Post #8 of 20
(1187 views)
Shortcut
|
You are a credit to fine and reputable modars everywhere.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 22 2016, 4:38am
Post #9 of 20
(1175 views)
Shortcut
|
it worked just fine to do it by chapters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I kept an eye on the Chronology of Years in the appendix to keep myself on track.
|
|
|
zarabia
Tol Eressea
Apr 22 2016, 7:10am
Post #10 of 20
(1168 views)
Shortcut
|
I almost did it that way when I first read TTT
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was devastated when I first realized that Tolkien was going to follow the Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli/Merry/Pippin storyline straight through Book 3 and I'd have to wait half a book to find out what was happening with Frodo and Sam. I thought seriously about alternating chapters, but I got so swept up in the story taking place on the west side of the Anduin that I quickly forgot that idea and felt devastated anew when I had to leave them and move on to the east.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
Apr 22 2016, 1:55pm
Post #11 of 20
(1155 views)
Shortcut
|
Same thing happens to me every time. I'm always unhappy after the Fellowship breaks up, to start with, and then it's so hard to have to pick one group to follow and even harder to stop and switch gears so I can follow another group for a while. One thing the movies do help with . . . although . . . is that a reason why PJ felt he had to ramp up tension with plot twists not in the book? Following a plot thread in the book, we get so caught up, we don't need to be hooked in any more, but as the movies jump around so much, he worried we may not be unless the stakes are raised? Was he right? Hmmm. Which doesn't explain why he introduced extra plot lines and THEN tried to ramp up tension in the Hobbit movies . . . unless he'd just gotten used to that style & forgot why he'd needed to do it in the first place . . .
(This post was edited by Annael on Apr 22 2016, 1:56pm)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Apr 22 2016, 9:10pm
Post #12 of 20
(1135 views)
Shortcut
|
Voted “Never”, but a unique concept
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I’ve never tried, but may give it a go. But there was a point back in the ‘70s when I wanted to know similarly who, in the Fellowship, was where and when, in an exact time-place relation to one another, and I ended up going the whole nine yards from Boromir’s leaving Minas Tirith on July 4th through to the destruction of the Ring. (Not an exercise in reading but an exercise more in researching.) Perhaps I’ll touch it up and put it in the Reading Room sometime. Thanks for the reminder...
|
|
|
EomundDaughter
Lorien
Apr 23 2016, 8:19pm
Post #13 of 20
(1090 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes...think I have unconsciously
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
skipped around on chapters because of that...love the way the films were done!
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Apr 25 2016, 9:54pm
Post #14 of 20
(1058 views)
Shortcut
|
No. I tried but it was too grueling. On the other hand,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I read it a couple of times following different characters from the Breaking of the Fellowship to their reunion. Frodo and Sam all the way to Mordor and beyond, then Merry and Pippin, then Aragorn and Co., or maybe in a different order, I don't remember. Anyway, it made the book seem much shorter. On the other hand,when I went in time sequence,it seemed to take forever, and I gave it up.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Apr 30 2016, 1:26pm
Post #15 of 20
(974 views)
Shortcut
|
I generally feel the author composes his/her work to present his/her ideas and concepts in a very particular way -- especially when that work was polished for decades. It's an interesting idea but we have references to keep the chronology straight, I prefer to reread the books as intended and originally presented.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
May 1 2016, 5:57am
Post #16 of 20
(955 views)
Shortcut
|
But the BBC adaptation follows the timeline in a much more linear fashion than the books do. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it spoils the surprise. For example, the listener knows all along where Gandalf is instead of worrying along with Frodo until he finds him again in Rivendell.
|
|
|
Annael
Immortal
May 1 2016, 4:25pm
Post #17 of 20
(947 views)
Shortcut
|
I've heard similar arguments; for instance, that because Tolkien was Catholic one must interpret his symbolism only in terms of what it means to a Catholic. But I disagree. I think the genius of the work lies partly in its ability to speak to people who do not share the beliefs or opinions of the author; if it did not, it would be a polemic. By the same token I do not feel in the least disrespectful of Tolkien because 2 out of the 60+ times I've read the book, I read it not in the order laid out by the author. It offered me different insights. Just as the times I've gone through the work looking for specific things - once, all the mentions of flora - have done.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
May 1 2016, 9:33pm
Post #18 of 20
(914 views)
Shortcut
|
I never said you were being disrespectful
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Nor did I say anything about reading into the author's intentions as polemics. I kind of laugh at people who insist on reading their own socio-political message into Tolkien or Hemingway or Shakespeare or Star Trek or ... well, you get the drift. My point was simply the author is conveying a story and the way s/he chooses to reveal events shapes ones perception of the story, especially when events are presented asynchronously. Sometimes there's reason for the choppiness induced by presenting widely disparate events synchronoously -- Gordon Prange's and Cornelius Ryan's works are famous for this as they give you a real sense for the chaos and confusion of war. In other works, like the Chronicles of Narnia, the author sometimes states the order one could read the books if you wanted a chronological picture but I find the perception of the story is changed. The fact of the matter is that Lewis wrote The Magician's Nephew after The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and foreknowledge of Narnia and its history helps when reading the prequel. The same thing holds for some of Terry Brooks' Shannara books or Anne McCaffrey's Pern books. As you say, once you've read it 10 or 20 or 30 times, reading a different way can make for different insights. I find I usually discover something new on subsequent rereadings -- little details I just hadn't made note of before. However, that's the difference between analytic reading and reading for enjoyment. My comments about reading in the order of publication or creation were intended for the first or second reading for enjoyment rather than subsequent readings for analytic discovery.
|
|
|
Riven Delve
Tol Eressea
May 5 2016, 10:23pm
Post #19 of 20
(851 views)
Shortcut
|
(I am too lazy to attempt that) but every single time in TTT and RotK I get annoyed when we switch from Frodo/Sam to the others and then vice versa. You'd think, after all these years, I would be resigned, but no... I'm always just getting comfy again in the current POV when I have to switch!!!
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 17 2016, 10:40am
Post #20 of 20
(768 views)
Shortcut
|
I think all that calculating would get in the way of the story. I'd rather read the book as the author intended (and watch the films as the director intended).
|
|
|
|
|