Artemis

Waking up to snow this morning was not the experience I wanted to have, lol.

That's my question. Life just will not let up.

That sounds amaaaaaazing! Hobbits and I are about equally voracious when it comes to mushrooms, lol.

[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.