Artemis

[Link]

A quick Google search brought me to this article about the hoods and beards. I was only partially correct; only four of the dwarves are described as having a beard of a certain color, and at least one of those (if not all four, according to the article) could be considered a natural hair color.

Hmm, maybe I'm confusing beards and hoods, although I'm fairly certain I remember at least a couple of dwarves described as having blue beards and yellow beards, because I remember thinking how weird that was. But it has been a couple of decades since my last reading. I never had any trouble remembering their names, but I'm generally good with names so there's that. Gloin is easy for me to remember, being Gimli's father, but that's because of LotR. Ditto. Was Fili charming? To be honest I can hardly remember anything he did or said in the films.

In "The Hobbit" (the book), all the dwarves have different-colored beards. Colors that aren't natural hair colors. I don't mind at all that they changed that for the movie, I think Tolkien might have changed it too if he knew that LotR was going to become a serious thing when he started his hobbit story. But I still think it would have been neat if they'd included a little nod to it. For instance, a tiny braid in each of their beards that corresponded to their color in the book, or the same color hairbands. Of course, with a beard like Kili's which is barely there at all, I don't know what they would have done. Dwarves take great pride in their beards, so I thought it was a strange choice for Kili to have little more than scruff.

I've never heard anyone call Fili "the pretty one", lol. Now I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Who's more to your taste, Fili or Kili?

A song I heard on the radio. "Snap" by Rosa Linn.

Thanks Carol! Sadly, as bad as covid was, it’s been the least of my problems these past months. Blahhh.

Apologies for my extended absence. Good God Almighty, have I had the summer from Hell. From HELL, I say! Second worst of my life.

Who do you get to elect? Sorry for the dumb question. I was under the same impression as Carol about role of the monarchy. I get why there are people who want to do away with the establishment, but what surprises me somewhat is the timing and intensity. I've heard hardly any objections really in ages, but now suddenly there is intense outrage en masse. Where has the outrage been for the last decade? You knew you'd be getting a new monarch after the death of Elizabeth II, didn't you? Who's responsible for starting that discussion, and in what format is it to be discussed? Sorry again if these are dumb questions, I'm very curious about this issue.

If I'm being totally honest, I think my experience has made me even less in favor of a vaccine mandate than I was before. I know with surety who I got covid from, and this person and I were both vaccinated and both wearing masks when we interacted. I used to be against the mandate based on principle, my own sense of logic, and anecdotes from other people. Now I'm against it based on all those things plus personal experience, lol. Generally speaking, I think exchanging freedom for safety is a bad idea. On principle I don't think people should be coerced into having something injected into their body; especially something so new and untried. Those who are afraid of getting sick are more than welcome to vaccinate and mask up. Those who would rather take the risk should be allowed to. If the vaccine and masks are effective, then both should be more than enough protection for the individual who wants to utilize them. If they're not enough protection, then they're not effective enough to warrant something as serious as a mandate. Just my personal opinion. I'd be a lot happier if everyone would just practice good hygiene and hand-washing. "Sigh" indeed... *sigh*.

Another trailer song, cover of "No Woman No Cry".

Thanks FL! I certainly hope to. My initial covid symptoms were a sore throat, high fever, pounding headache, body aches, heavy sinus congestion, heavy fatigue, and a mild cough. Most of those went away after a week or two, so for awhile I was tricked into thinking I was getting better, but my cough got steadily worse and worse. Glad your case was mild!

Speaking of bad cases of covid, I've got one. It's my first time with it and it's been miserable. The covid developed into pneumonia (my first time with that also) and I've been sick now for over a month. Every muscle in my body is sore from coughing so hard. I pulled some muscles and displaced some bones in my back, shoulder and ribs. I finally got to the chiropractor last week but I was in serious pain for a couple of weeks before that. I couldn't even keep water down because I would just cough it back up a few minutes later. Not to be dramatic but about two or three weeks in, I started thinking about making plans for my dog in case I didn't get better. I felt like death. I was given antibiotics and I'm finally starting to improve, I think, maybe... very slowly, it seems. My doctor said I should be showing improvement by day two of the five-day treatment course, but I didn't notice a difference until day six. It's now day thirteen and I've still got a cough and a wheeze, and fatigue from the cough; but I'm not having coughing fits that last for hours like I was before, so that's improvement, right? I'm unfamiliar with pneumonia and how it's supposed to feel so I'm not sure at what point I should be thinking about hospitalization if it hasn't totally cleared up. Some people say I should have been almost 100% better by the time I finished my antibiotics, and others say the cough can continue for weeks or months afterwards. My doctor was vague about timing, and I'm not sure if I should or how I could go in for another appointment, seeing as my employers don't offer health insurance benefits to part-timers and I don't have enough money left to spend due to being home sick and out of work for so long. I would really like to be done with this illness asap. My family has also been dealing with bad cases of covid. My mom got hers right before I did and developed bronchitis as a result, and my brother has his right now and says he's the sickest he's ever been, he can't even get out of bed. My nieces and nephews all got it as well. Unfortunately I passed mine on to my dad before I knew I had it, but fortunately he had a mild case that was pretty much all better in less than a week. For the record, we are all vaccinated (except for the kids, who are all under age 6).

Vivaldi's "Spring 1", recomposed by Max Richter.

Frodo and Sam were in my dreams last night, lol. Been thinking about this too much lately, apparently.

It's Gandalf the Grey smoking a pipe and in the smoke it says " Disturber of the Peace".

Lookit the nifty new pin I'm sporting on my gray scarf! I'm so proud of it, lol.

I don't mind that Legolas was included either, for the reasons you already mentioned. What I object to is the *extent* to which he was included. He should have been given a brief cameo or two at most, not an entire storyline. Maybe a shot of him at his home in Mirkwood, and a cool combat scene in the Battle of Five Armies... but no more than that. Maybe for the Mirkwood cameo, they could have left in (or done a variation of) the scene where he asks Gloin about his picture of Gimli. It's not my favorite scene, but it does serve the dual purpose of reminding the audience that Gloin is Gimli's father and Legolas is from Mirkwood. I *do* mind that Tauriel was included, lol. She's not a character Tolkien created, she doesn't belong in the story. I don't think there was a single character with a speaking line in the LotR films who wasn't in the books in some capacity. (Though I could be mistaken; it has been many many years since I've seen the films.) Tauriel is completely made up for the film and an entirely unnecessary character. If she had only had one small scene, maybe as a guard to the imprisoned Dwarves or something, I could have lived with it. But she should never have been given a subplot. I must admit I never noticed. I was too busy rolling my eyes and being extremely irritated by her existence. That's exactly what drives me so crazy about the changes made to characters, both here and in the LotR films. Bilbo's rescue of the Dwarves from the spiders showcased his courage and cleverness. When you take that action away from him, you take away the character traits demonstrated by him through that action. And it's especially frustrating when that action and those traits are then redistributed to a different character, just to make that character look better or cooler or whatever. Now you've diminished the character who originally took that action, and then you have to listen to everyone else shouting, "Wow, Legolas! The true hero! So brave and smart! Good thing he was there to save that helpless Hobbit!" The Mirkwood chapter is probably my favorite from the 'Hobbit' book, so I was annoyed about the Elves' involvement in the spider scene; but it didn't bother me as much as it could have, because at least they showed Bilbo confusing the spiders and cutting the Dwarves free of their webs before the Elves interfered. This will probably sound silly, but the change that actually bothered me more was the scene where Bilbo noticed Smaug's missing scale. In the film, it was just that: He *happened* to notice. (And he wasn't even the first to notice, because he'd heard the rumor in Laketown that Smaug was missing a scale after his last "visit" to Laketown, when Bard's ancestor knocked it off with a black arrow.) In the book, it was quick thinking and an intelligent play. He used flattery and feigned ignorance to trick Smaug into showing off his underbelly, so he could look for weak spots. When he found one, he told the Dwarves, and word got back to Bard, who was able to use the information to eventually take Smaug down. So not only was Bilbo proven to be clever (again), we also have him to thank for Smaug's destruction. But in the film, it was just a passing observation, and Bard just happened to notice the same thing later when Smaug was near, without Bilbo’s help. Bilbo had no effect on Smaug's outcome at all. I don't know, it just bugged me. Couldn't agree with you more! 100%.

Ah yes, I remember that now. That scene was a nice addition. I still have to read your fanfic! I'm pretty sure you gave me a link a long while ago, and I totally forgot all about it. I'm sorry! I'm gonna make myself a note so I don't forget again. "Sigh" indeed. My number one gripe with the 'Hobbit' films (and I have very, very, very many) is the addition of characters that weren't in the book, particularly Tauriel and her shoehorned love triangle. No thank you. I'm not sure whether they added so much extra stuff because they thought it would be more exciting, or because PJ was forced to fill the span of three 3-hour films. They thought they could make another 'Lord of the Rings' with a book that is only a quarter of the size, and they were wrong. I've read rumors that PJ nearly had a mental breakdown struggling to figure out how to stretch the 'Hobbit' films so long. I don't think one movie would have done it though, even a 3-hour movie. It would have been too rushed. But I think two 2-hour movies might have been about right.

And on that subject! That's my second most disliked scene/character change in the movie (second to the scene where Frodo sends Sam away). Faramir never takes the Ring to Gondor. He is helpful to Frodo and Sam. He also doesn't and never would have had Gollum beaten in order to learn about the Ring. It's actually Sam who lets it slip that Frodo is carrying the Ring. Luckily, he let it slip to the best person possible. Faramir has no interest in the Ring, because he has no interest in attaining power. I'm disappointed that they did not maintain this important detail as it was in the books, because Tolkien was trying to teach us something through Faramir's character. Frodo and Faramir are alike in a lot of ways. Both have wisdom, compassion, gentleness, and strength of mind. Both are intellectual and studious, preferring what you might call "higher pursuits" to the pursuit of glory, power, or gain. In contrast to Boromir, Faramir was a reluctant soldier. Denethor disapprovingly calls him a "wizard's pupil", criticizing him for his eagerness to learn and take instruction from Gandalf over the years. Boromir was known for his bravery, but Faramir was known for his nobility. Several times Tolkien draws a connection between warriors and the temptation of power. Boromir is first to fall to the Ring in large part because he is a warrior. That doesn't make him a bad person; warriors like Boromir seek greater power because they yearn to protect what they love. But that's what so deceptive and enticing about it. Frodo and Faramir are the least inclined towards fighting, and thus the least inclined to seek power to aid them. You could argue that even the other Hobbits have stronger fighting instincts. Sam is always ready to throw hands, and Merry and Pippin both go to war and end up offering their service to Rohan and Gondor, respectively. There's a lesson here, but it was ignored and changed in the films. There are moral messages littered throughout Tolkien's work, and they're relayed through the actions of the characters. When you change the character, you change the message. Maybe they thought they were making Faramir more interesting or complex or something, but I wish they wouldn't have. Everything Tolkien wrote had a purpose, just the way it was written. Anyway, if I had to pick another character besides Frodo to bear the Ring to Mount Doom, I'd probably pick Faramir first. Not that it really matters, because as Tolkien said in one of his letters, everyone would have failed at the end. Frodo got it closer than anyone else would have been able to, but no one would have been able to throw it in the fire willingly. As a second choice, though, I'd place my bet on Faramir.

Oh yeah, I agree! I only meant that there could be an explanation for Sam looking older than Frodo, not for how very young Frodo looks in the movies, lol. Elijah Wood could never pass for 33. Maybe 23. I don't think Sean Astin looks as old to me as he does to you though. To me he could pass for as young as 25 but looks about 28, which I think was his actual age when filming began. Elijah Wood was 18. Hmmm... So if Sam looks 28 (to me), and Frodo could pass for 23 (to me), that is ironically a 5-year age difference, lol. Maybe that's why it doesn't bother me much. I was just about to bring that up! I'm pretty sure it says in there somewhere that his fascination with Elves is attributed to his love of Bilbo's stories as a youth. Such was true of many young Hobbits who grew up hearing Bilbo's stories, but most of them "grew out of it". Sam held on to that starry-eyed dream even into adulthood, which I think says a lot about him. Even in the movie it's said that Sam wanted to see the Elves "more than anything". And then he wants to go immediately back home, lol. Not that I blame him! Yes, working-class. Although one's respectability in the Shire is not necessarily dependent on one's social class. Frodo and Bilbo (after he returned from his adventure to the Lonely Mountain) were not so highly esteemed, in spite of their class (unless they were throwing parties or giving out gifts, lol). Sam, on the other hand, went on to become the mayor of Hobbiton, re-elected for 7 consecutive terms until his retirement. One certainly cannot say his social status hindered him from being admired and well-liked! It could be! It's hard to say really, I don't know that Tolkien ever got all that specific about its significance. When I said that their coming of age may be more symbolic than literal, I didn't mean to imply that it is somehow less significant as such. What I was ultimately trying to suggest was that the Hobbits' "tweens" may actually be another stage of adulthood, rather than a stage of prolonged adolescence as it is popularly interpreted; much like the ancient Jews became adults well before the age of 30, but were not considered fully mature until then. It's not even all that hard to put into modern human terms, really. We basically have the "tweens" stage ourselves; we call them "young adults". Tolkien just gave it another name. Our 20's are considered our unstable, "adventurous" stage of life, before we settle down. It seems very similar an idea to the Hobbits' "tweens", and covers *at least* ages 18-25, though I would say it's applied to everyone under 30. It's even pretty common to use the word "kids" to describe this group, even though they are in fact adults. "College kids" is a phrase I hear frequently, though I've heard the word "kid" applied to all 20-somethings, not just those in their early 20's. At 30, however, nobody calls you a "kid". People take the term "coming of age" so literally, they seem to think Tolkien meant that Hobbits are still children prior to age 33; when I think what he really meant was that they haven't settled down yet. Basically, "coming of age" means "reaching maturity", not "reaching adulthood". There's a difference. Anyway, applying this logic to our Hobbits: Sam is far enough out of his tweens to not be grouped in with Merry and Pippin as "kids", so in human terms I'd say he's roughly in his early 30's somewhere. Merry is "barely out of his tweens", so in human terms I'd place him around 27 or 28 years old. Old enough to be considered a more mature 20-something nearing 30, but young enough to still be called a kid sometimes. Half those times probably just because he spends so much time getting into mischief with a 22(ish)-year-old, lol. What is the acorn scene? I forget.

Well yes, but that's only taking into account the Hobbits' perspective. I was thinking of it more from the author's perspective. Merry and Pippin's youthfulness is mentioned by many other characters throughout the books (who would know little to nothing of the Hobbits' class structure), and very often by Gandalf. I don't think Sam's is ever mentioned. He's never grouped in with them when the subject arises, and in fact I think even he himself makes a comment about the trouble caused by their immaturity at some point. That tells me that Tolkien wanted us to regard Merry and Pippin as youths (Pippin most of all), but not so much Sam. It's also worth noting that while yes, Merry and Pippin's coming of age might arouse more interest due to their social status, in context their youth is more often referred to in a disparaging manner, as if problematic. Weeeeell, it's debatable, because their aging timeline doesn't match up with our human timeline. We have stages of life fairly neatly divided into sections of about 20 years; but apparently Hobbits have an adolescence of 33 years, and then only 17 more years until middle age. It’s like adjusting for inflation, lol. You have to do some wonky calculations to figure out how Hobbit years match up with human years, which many people have attempted to do. And I think there is a general consensus. What I've seen most often is that, in human years, Frodo is about 40; Sam is in his early 30's; Merry is in his mid-to-late 20's; and Pippin is in his early 20's or late teens. And to me that makes sense, because that's about how old they each act in the books. But again, it's debatable. Edit: I forgot to mention, if the above age translation is accurate (and I don’t know how they arrived at that, I’m no mathematician), it could explain why Merry and Sam are treated as being at different stages of maturity despite their age difference of only 2 Hobbit years. If Sam is, say, between 30-33, and Merry is between 25-28, it would makes sense that Merry would be viewed as more of a young adult than Sam. Even humans treat people in their 30’s differently than those in their 20’s. Sometimes even when the difference is only a 30-year-old and a 28-year-old. There’s something about crossing that 30 threshhold that just changes how people think of you. So anyway, there could be something like at at play here. In any case, while I applaud those who have tried, I don’t think the age thing is necessarily worth figuring out. It doesn’t seem to follow very strict rules, and I don’t think it has to. That’s more of a silly human construct. Personally, I think that the coming of age at 33 is taken a bit too literally. Tolkien was a Christian, and 33 is an important number in Christianity. In Jesus' day, in traditional Judaism (and maybe even still, I'm not sure), age 30 was a kind of coming of age. Obviously people were long grown before the age of 30, but 30 was considered the age at which one finally achieved their full strength, full maturity, and truly became their own person, able to care for themselves. Jesus began his ministry at age 30, which ended when he died at age 33. 33 then in Christianity became a number symbolic of fully coming into one's own. I think Tolkien took that idea and applied it to his Hobbits, intending it to be taken in the same vein more as a symbolic coming of age. Less "you are a legal adult now", and more "you are fully mature now". That's an interesting thought. Maybe! I shall have to consider that some more. For some reason, to me, Frodo and Sam seem about the same age in the movies. I mean, Frodo's actor *is* very young-looking (because he *was* very young, lol), and if I think about it hard then yeah, he definitely looks quite a bit younger than Sam's actor. But when I'm watching the movie, somehow I don't notice the difference and I totally buy that they're the same age. Also consider that this could technically be explained away. Frodo came into possession of the Ring on his 33rd birthday (there's that 33 again), and it slowed his aging as it had done for Bilbo. Over the following 17 years the Hobbits began noticing and gossiping amongst themselves about how "queer" it was that he appeared to have not aged at all since then, as if time had stopped for him, just like Bilbo. So theoretically, at the time they leave the Shire, Frodo could look 5 years younger than 38-year-old Sam, give or take. Oddly, Sam could very well be the oldest-looking Hobbit of the bunch, lol.

Based on what I remember hearing/reading in interviews and such, I'm pretty sure PJ was just dead set on casting Elijah Wood. If it were me, I wouldn't even bother trying to make it consistent with the movies. Just follow the original source! Ditto, lol. Ugh, that scene. It's not in the books, and it doesn't even make sense. I half wonder if they added it in because they wrote themselves into a bit of a corner. They changed the story by having Faramir bring Frodo and Sam to Gondor, and once they were in Gondor they had to think of a reason for Faramir to change his mind and let them go. The Nazgul scene prompted Sam's speech, which prompted Faramir to change his mind. I'm not really sure how they could have written it differently and led to the same conclusion. In any case, that scene bugs me. And I was already annoyed that they were in Gondor in the first place, lol.

Not Sam, he’s well into adulthood. If I recall correctly, Sam is 38 when Frodo is 50, the year they leave the Shire. Merry and Pippin (or at least Pippin, less sure about Merry) are “kids”, per se, having not yet come of age in their culture, which happens at age 33. Edit: Just looked it up. Merry was 36, so also an adult, though perhaps considered a young one. Pippin was 28, so still in his “tweens”. I could be wrong, but as far as I remember, Sam’s age is never really emphasized; only Merry and Pippin are described as young and have their youth pointed out continuously throughout (Pippin especially). Which leads me to believe that Sam is no longer a youth by Hobbit standards. To clarify, the “experience” I was speaking of was not the experience that comes with age, but rather his life experience. Sam is from Hobbiton and practically the embodiment of a respectable Hobbit. He doesn’t share Frodo’s experience of being regarded as a misfit among his own people (albeit a well-to-do misfit, thanks to Bilbo’s wealth and the name of Baggins). And being a typical Hobbit, with the experience of a typical Hobbit, he has the attitudes of a typical Hobbit, which include a distaste and strong suspicion towards outsiders or anything different. I forget where I was going with that… I think I was just trying to explain how their different experiences within the Shire community have influenced the people they’ve become, the way they think and act throughout the book. I will come back and comment more later when I can. Thank you for reading my giant blocks of text, lol.