Hooray!

[Quickbeam]

Today I finished the Two towers. I loved the ending. I totally began to trust Smeagol. And I believed Frodo died too. There were so many twists! I couldn't believe Gollum was planning oin taking them to Shelob the whole time. What did you guys think of the end?

[arynetrek]

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!





when i first read the name "Shelob" in the chapter heading i had a BAD feeling. i doubt i was even breathing for pages on end when they walked up the stairs, just reading and wondering what horrible fate awaited those poor hobbits - they'd already gone through so much! around the line "and this above all convinced Sam that he had laid aside his Quest" (paraphrased - NOT a quote!) i had to put the book down, as much as that hurt, and just cry for about a half hour. after calming down, and screaming (not an exaggeration) at JRRT for killing Frodo, i read a little further - until somewhere around "Companions were chosen so the Quest would not fail, and i am the last," and i got into this weird emotional state - i HAD to keep reading, no matter who got killed off. when Sam leaves Frodo's body, and the Orcs take him away, i just couldn't take the uncertainty - i was now completely seeing things from Sam's perspective, and was VERY convinced he'd end up dead beside poor Frodo at the end of the book. i flipped to the last page of Book IV to see if the book would continue, completely forgetting for the moment the existence of RotK despite that my copy includes all 3 in one cover. this was the first & only time i've looked ahead in a book to see what was coming. i read the line "Frodo was alive, but captive" (again not a quote - my book is packed, moving yet again...) - i can't remember what my reaction was, but that same night i read for many many more hours & got well into RotK before going to sleep.

the next day was entirely dedicated to RotK. and the next, and the next...

i actually regret knowing what happens in this scene when i reread LotR - the terrible suspense just hasn't had quite the same intensity...

after reading this scene my definition of a great author became someone who can completely trash his main characters & bring the story to a point of absolute, total despair, and still make you keep reading. So far only two other people fit this definition.

and i too trusted Smeagol.

aryne *

[KingElessar8]

It was quite a long time ago, in my case. As I remember, I was shocked utterly by Smeagols betrayal, totally horrified at Shelob stinging Frodo, and unbeliving about Frodos "death". But the main thing I felt was POd the moment I figured out I was going to have to get through an ENTIRE book before the story went back to Frodo and Sam. Thats a long, long time to wait for an 8 year old brain.

[Finglas]

I was disappointed when I found out that Frodo wasn't dead. Gandalf coming back to life was an interesting twist in the story, but resurecting two dead characters in one book just seems tacky. Looking back on it, I can see Frodo saying "I'm not dead yet!", ala Monty Python.

[Ñólendil]

Well, as you say Frodo never died and so can't have been resurrected. But even if he had, they 'came back' in separate Books. The Lord of the Rings is one continuous story you know, the Volumes are not natural divisions.

[Finglas]

well excuuuuuuuse ME! Thbbbt! :rolleyes:

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
Well, as you say Frodo never died and so can't have been resurrected. But even if he had, they 'came back' in separate Books. The Lord of the Rings is one continuous story you know, the Volumes are not natural divisions.

Of course you are right that it is one long tale. But the disposition complicates the issue.
Firstly there are three volumes, 'parts'. Then the volumes are divided into two parts; that makes six 'books'.
Furthermore book 4 deals exclusively with the adventures of Frodo and Sam, while they instead are totally absent from book 5, which instead has several different plot-threads.
So yes it is a continuous story, but the continuity is somewhat complicated.

[Ñólendil]

You are excuuuuuuuuuused. :) Or you are if I can be excused for being an obsessive niggler.

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
You are excuuuuuuuuuused. :) Or you are if I can be excused for being an obsessive niggler.

LOL! ;) :D

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Quickbeam
Today I finished the Two towers.

Congratulations to having the third book The Return of the King left to read!!! :)

[KingElessar8]

It never bothered me that Frodo turned out not to be dead. For one thing, I liked him. Sort of bloodthirsty to want a character you like to die, IMO. Beyond that, Tolkien really couldnt kill him. There was no way Sam would have reached Mt Doom by himself, none at all, without constructing the rest of the plot in an utterly contrived manner, and there was a lot of contrivance as it was, frankly. Tolkien made the goal so difficult and his characters so weak there was no "realistic" way to conclude the plot of destroying the Ring.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by KingElessar8
It never bothered me that Frodo turned out not to be dead. For one thing, I liked him. Sort of bloodthirsty to want a character you like to die, IMO. Beyond that, Tolkien really couldnt kill him. There was no way Sam would have reached Mt Doom by himself, none at all, without constructing the rest of the plot in an utterly contrived manner, and there was a lot of contrivance as it was, frankly. Tolkien made the goal so difficult and his characters so weak there was no "realistic" way to conclude the plot of destroying the Ring.

I just write it off to divine intervention.

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Wayfarer


I just write it off to divine intervention.

Well, a lot of the suspence and the fascination of the plot does come from these extremes between hard struggling mortals on the one hand, and the machinations of 'gods' (angels really except for the One) on the other hand.

[Bacchus]

A few folks have pointed out that they were beginning to trust Smeagol. If Sam had found it within himself to do the same thing, perhaps Frodo need never have been subjected to the sting or the capture.

[Quickbeam]

Quote:
A few folks have pointed out that they were beginning to trust Smeagol. If Sam had found it within himself to do the same thing, perhaps Frodo need never have been subjected to the sting or the capture.

(sorry, I don't know how to do quotes!)

Don't you mean if he hadn't trusted smeagol?? He didn't already, but maybe if he did something about it, then they wouldn't have followed himinto that mess. How do you think that if sam trusted smeagol they would be out of trouble???

[Bacchus]

My reference was to the scene on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. Sam and Frodo were asleep, and Gollum was petting Frodo's hand. Sam, upon waking, speaks harshly to Gollum, thus destroying any chance of Gollum's redemption. In Letter 246, Tolkien cited this scene as one of the most poignant and pivotal of the entire work. The "Smeagol" persona was trying to reassert itself over the long-dominant "Gollum" persona. Had Sam been just a bit more perceptive, the entire betrayal at Torech Ungol might have been averted. Tolkien goes on to speculate that, had Sam not reacted as he did, the entire focus of the story would have shifted to Smeagol and his struggle. He opines that the final outcome would likely have been Smeagol siezing the Ring and intentionally throwing himself into the Fire in order to save Frodo from himself.

[fireworks19]

I don't like the second half of T2T. It draggged, I thought...Smeagol always got more on my nerves then anything else.

[Finglas]

Originally posted by Bacchus
My reference was to the scene on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. Sam and Frodo were asleep, and Gollum was petting Frodo's hand. Sam, upon waking, speaks harshly to Gollum, thus destroying any chance of Gollum's redemption. In Letter 246, Tolkien cited this scene as one of the most poignant and pivotal of the entire work. The "Smeagol" persona was trying to reassert itself over the long-dominant "Gollum" persona. Had Sam been just a bit more perceptive, the entire betrayal at Torech Ungol might have been averted. Tolkien goes on to speculate that, had Sam not reacted as he did, the entire focus of the story would have shifted to Smeagol and his struggle. He opines that the final outcome would likely have been Smeagol siezing the Ring and intentionally throwing himself into the Fire in order to save Frodo from himself.

Wow! I never thought of it like that. In fact, that sounds like a better ending. I have got to get a copy of the Letters.

[Quickbeam]

Originally posted by Bacchus
My reference was to the scene on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. Sam and Frodo were asleep, and Gollum was petting Frodo's hand. Sam, upon waking, speaks harshly to Gollum, thus destroying any chance of Gollum's redemption. In Letter 246, Tolkien cited this scene as one of the most poignant and pivotal of the entire work. The "Smeagol" persona was trying to reassert itself over the long-dominant "Gollum" persona. Had Sam been just a bit more perceptive, the entire betrayal at Torech Ungol might have been averted. Tolkien goes on to speculate that, had Sam not reacted as he did, the entire focus of the story would have shifted to Smeagol and his struggle. He opines that the final outcome would likely have been Smeagol siezing the Ring and intentionally throwing himself into the Fire in order to save Frodo from himself.

That's a good point, I never thought about it that way.

[Wayfarer]

I can see smeagol doing that.