The Battle of the two trilogies or, Attack of the prequels.

Hello good reader!

I was first introduced to Star Wars relativly (or rather very) late in my childhood, through it’s spinoff series The Clone Wars, wich I loved, even as a 15 year old. I watched the original trilogy with my father, who was a fan. I absolutely loved those movies, and I couldn’t wait to see the prequels, and then I watched them…

Well, dissapointed is a good word to use to descirbe my feelings. Don’t get me wrong, I liked some of the characters, the beggining of the clone wars was one of my favourite movies scenes from childhood, and seeing Yoda fight the emperor was a dream come true. But alas, a menagerie of hollow characters, some convoluted plot lines, and having to hear Anakin bitch about anything and everything that didn’t go his way ruined the movies for me. I can only hope that next years The Force Awakens salvages the broken masterpiece that is Starwars.

As the final chapter in The Hobbit film trilogy was released last week, it made me lament what The Hobbit trilogy could(n’t) have been, and what it is. As much as I want to love The Hobbit films like I love The Lord of The Rings trilogy, I just can’t. The three movies suffer from the same ailment as the Star Wars prequel trilogy, albeit in a far less offensive manner. Now I do like The Hobbit films, I haven’t yet seen the final one, but I do like the first two, but in no way do they live up to the expectation that TLOTR set for them, and I was always worried this would be the case.

Making The Hobbit films as well as TLOTR, I think, was an impossible task, so all things considered Peter Jackson did a monumentally good job. Nevertheless trying to make a children’s fantasy story into an adult-steered epic like it’s succesors could not be done. Each of the films has jarring shifts from beheaded goblins and orcs and sprays of blood, to the kidsy humour of the notorious barrell riders scene. Cutting this scene out, however, would take away any semblence of this being a children’s story, therefore not remaining true to the story itself, and making it purely a child-friendly fantasy tale would in no way fit the TLOTR trilogy. The films could never have worked perfectly, unless, just maybe, The Hobbit was made first and allowed to mature into a different, slightly more fantastical version of TLOTR (a la a grownups how to train your dragon), but that is a longshot.

As it stands The Hobbit trilogy is still a decent lot of films. With it’s fantasy scenes (such as the Wargs battle with the dwarves on the cliff) that look like Zach Snyder and Guillermo Del Toro had a really beautiful baby and made Tim Burton the godfather, the humourous dwarves, and the tale of comraderie and acceptence that emerges from Bilbo’s journey with them, The Hobbit films still earn a place in my heart (or DVD shelf as it is). So let’s not look at them as the terrible prequels that ruin a fantasy epic, but rather as the scar of not-quit-ness on the almost flawless journey.

Until next time.

That is All.

 

Fire and depth; Or, The Divide

Hello, good reader!

Like I have said, I’m going to start posting some of the poems I have written. I don’t think many (if any) are particularly good, but hey, this is the internet, 90% of it is rubbish, and I can’t get better without writing more. So here it is.

(Although I said most of them weren’t good this is, in truth, one of my worse poems, and not a reflection of what is to come.)

Between the Devil and the Deep sea,

is where I am.

I ponder the if the choice is worth making.

It is, surely

 

The disparity of Flame and Water,

does not compare to my doubt.

The burden of choice is lofty,

I am honoured far beyond my worth.

 

luxurious Evil, arduous Good,

To choose between the two:

Should not to me be offered,

but the choice alone is mine to make, and so I shall.

 

Until next time.

That is All.

 

 

Character is doing what’s wrong when everyone is looking.

Character is doing the right thing

When no soul is in sight

Doing what makes you

What you are inside

 

Character is doing the best thing

That the world will never know

Making better the part of you

That you never’ll show

 

Character is doing the wrong thing

When on you the worlds eyes aim

Taking the fall, feeling the hate

To strengthen the flame

that burns inside

All That is Gold Does Not Glitter

All that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost;

The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring;

Renewed shall be blade that was broken,

The crownless again shall be king

Hello good reader!

If by now you haven’t figured it out, today we’re going to be looking at J.R.R Tolkien’s poem ‘All That is Gold Does Not Glitter’ from The Lord of The Rings(I know, it wasn’t obvious at all was it?). This is one of my favourite poems, it’s short, to the point (which sounds midly contradictory as it’s abstract) and it’s starts with a marvelous subversion of an old proverb, whilst still respecting it. This post is going to get into some mildly intricate details of the mythology of Middle-Earth, be prepared Let’s start with the first line.

All that is gold does not glitter,

What a hook, seriously, this could be my favourite line of poetry ever, period. It’s so simple, and yet so clever. The old saying “All that glitters is not gold” (which, I believe is a deviation of a line from Shakespear’s ‘The Merchant of Venice”), is mean’t to communicate that not everything that is visually appealing, or beautiful, carries the traits of beauty deeper than it’s surface. Tolkien’s subtle change of this proverb completely changes the meaning. Now we can take from it that many things which have incredible value don’t show it. Now this is very clever, it subverts an old proverb that, I would say, everyone knows, and replaces it with something that is equally as true. It also sets up the whole premise of the poem, appearance and expectation don’t necessarily reflect truth.

      Not all those who wander are lost;

      This line is slightly more specific to the book (not that the first isn’t, this one just has less of an application to the real world. This line is implicitly reffering to the rangers (or more specifically the Dunedain Rangers). It suggests that the common belief that the rangers are somewhat aimless is incorrect.

      The old that is strong does not wither,

I must admit that I’m not actually specifically how this line refers to the story, although I can take an educated guess and say it’s about Aragorn’s lineage, seeing as he is from a far more pure and ancient line than the current ruler/steward of Gondor. This line als says something interesting about real life as well, as so often we believe that old things are inferior and weak.

      Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

Just like the last line I can only assume that this line is reffering to Aragorn’s lineage, it carries pretty much the same conetations as the previous line. At this point I would like to point out that the first two lines share a syllable count of eight, and the second two of nine. To me this suggests that they are intentionally grouper according to their meaning, the first two lines speak about appearances or perceptions not truly reflecting that nature of a thing, whilst the second two speak about the strength and resiliance that old, well established things have.

I believe the second stanza is best looked at as a whole, so let’s do that.

     From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

    A light from the shadows shall spring;

    Renewed shall be blade that was broken,

    The crownless again shall be king

The syllabilic structure of this stanza is very interesting to me. At first one might think to group the first two lines together, and then the second two, which is fair enough, after all, ashes, fire and light clearly belong together, as do blade, crown[less] and King (when understood in the context of Narsil, Aragorn and Gondor). However upon deeper inspection, one can see that the first line has the same syllable count as the third, and the second with the fourth. This suggests to me that each line has two parters, So fire that wakes from the ashes doesn’t only belong with light coming from the shadows, but also with the reforging (through fire) of a blade. And then that The light from the shadows not only should be partered with the 5th line, but also with the crownless becoming king (which, if understood in context, does seem to fit quite well, considering that Aragorn more or less came out of the shadows to become king, think of how he is introduced in the story).

Anyway, that’s my understanding of the poem, I hope you learned something, or just enjoyed another perspective on the poems meaning. In the coming weeks I’ll be doing more like this, and posting some of my own poetry (word to the wise, it might make your eyes bleed).

Until next time.

That is All.

Update on the Hobbit series

Hello good reader!

I hope you’ve enjoyed what I have written on the Hobbit so far, because it’s been a pleasure to write. Due to the business of Christmas I can’t afford to put a lot of time into doing the Hobbit series, so until the new year, it’ll be taking a backseat. I’ll still be doing similar posts on literature/poetry each week, They’ll just be on simpler things (or if not simpler, shorter). I really didn’t feel as though I was doing The Hobbit justice with my posts, so taking a break and getting everything in order for a new start will help me to make the content better.

To start this temporary phase on a good note, tomorrow I’ll be taking a quick look at one of Toklien’s most well known poems, which will be a joy.

Until next time.

That is All.

Bilbo in limbo part 1 or, a amataur’s analysis of Roast Mutton

Hello good reader!

Chapter two of The Hobbit starts as Bilbo wakes up in the morning to find the dwarves and Gandalf have left, which leaves him feeling both comforted and a little dissapointed. Just like in the first chapter, this split in Bilbo’s feelings is very emblematic of his mixed Took and Baggins heritage and nature.

Something that only occured to me as I was reading ‘Roast Mutton’ was how important Bilbo’s last name is to his character. Now I have read The Hobbit before, so I know how he gradually developes into an adventurous hobbit and being ‘Tookish’ becomes part of his reputation. But despite how Tookish he becomes, Bilbo is and forever will be a comfort loving Baggins, who counts smoking a pipe in the warm evening as one of the finest things in life. Which makes Tolkien’s choice to name him Baggins, instead of Took (or ascribe the comfort loving qualities to Baggins intead of Took) very intentional.

Bilbo’s journey throughout the chapter is fraught with situations that leave him longing for home and being generally unhappy about his coming on the adventure, but never whole-heartedly regretting it. This really shows when he goes to investigate the trolls. Tolkien’s choice of describing the fire and meat before the trolls tells me that they were the first thing Bilbo really took and interest in, as does the naming of the chapter ‘Roast Mutton’. When Bilbo sees the fire and mutton I believe his mind started to slip back into comfort mode, thinking of warmth, good smells and tasty food, and the metaphorical blanket is whipped out from under his feet and he’s straight back to the Took when he realises the presence of the trolls. I say straight back to the Took because of his reaction to seeing the trolls. It isn’t to run away and seek any semblance of comfort he can find, rather to try and pick the trolls pockets, and reaffirm his status as ‘burglar’. So Bilbo’s getting much more Tookish, but as we’ll see, he’s not there yet.

Until next time.

That is All.

P.S. For anyone who liked my post on the Bilbo and Gollum figure that I picked up, good news! I have a few more posts on some figures I’ve managed to find over the past little while thanks to some extra money and nosing through dusty stores.

Apologies and Maslow or why I haven’t posted and the Fall of Maslow’s hierachy of needs in the Philippines.

Hello good reader!

So, this is the awkward post where I explain why I haven’t posted anything for the past three weeks, because let’s face it, that’s pretty bad. As I mentioned before I went on a two week trip overseas to the Philippines to help out a school there. In the preparation for the trip I had very little time to poast anything and on the trip internet was a rare commodity that was used solely for sending brief messages to friends back home. So yeah, oops. But hey, I’m back, let the good posts role, I thought I’d get things moving with some good ol’ Maslow.

In the Philippines I was constantly astonished by one thing, which was the Filipino’s generousity. Now I can’t say realisticly that all Filipino’s are generous, but in the community I was in it was definitely the norm. This might not sound like a real big deal at first, but it was when I got to know some of the people there better that I started to be suprised, and the little grey cells got working. There was a woman who taught at the school that by all standards seemed like your standard, middle-class teacher. She was giving of her time, her (presumably significant) resources, and didn’t ask for anything in return. Anyway, the trip went on and I had the opportunity to visit this woman’s house, what I saw when I got there amazed me. The house was little more than sticks with boards and tarp, and it was a struggle to pay for, and provided very little shelter from the weather. Now this is a common sight where I was, so it wasn’t so much the house that suprised me, but the disparity between the woman’s circumstances and how much she gave what she had to other people. This got me thinking about Maslow’s hierachy of needs which, in case you don’t know, is a needs theory that explains what people need to survive and in what order they will seek certain needs, based on their current situation (e.g. Someone without a home won’t be looking to win the nobel prize, they’ll want a house first, then friends, then a job, etc.). So based of my understanding of Maslow’s hierachy, this woman shouldn’t have been doing what she was. She wasn’t fully meeting her safety and psychological needs, but had jumped ahead to her belonging needs, and based on several things she spoke of, had plans set in motion to start achieving her esteem needs.

An understandable response to this is “So what? It’s societal norm to have a shonky house in the Philippines, she had what she thought was normal, and she was progressing to the next stage”, but that isn’t how it works, according to Maslow at least, you need to satisfactorily have a need fulfilled before you even consider the next, and this woman was doing the complete opposite. Even in the generous Philippines, this was seen by the community as odd. Now call it coincidence, but this woman had a different religion than those who lived around her. The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country, and other relgions are minorities. This woman wasn’t Catholic, she identified as a “born again Christian”, as did a few others in the community, all of which were not only generous, but even went out of their own way to help people better off than them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not dogging Catholics, but it made me think – What if there is something to following a more ‘faith’ based religion, instead of following a set of rules? I’m not saying this as a set rule, that ‘faith’ religions make someone a better person, and vice versa. But if everything is truly meaningless, and there is no God, is it really that bad to believe in something that makes you a better person, even if it’s wrong? Does giving subjective meaning to the meangingless make it truly meangingful?

There is no doubt that there are errors to what I’ve just said, but I think it’s worth thinking about anyway. More posts are coming soon, I had a decent amount of time to think about things to post during my time away, and the next in the series of the Hobbit is coming along nicely.

Until next time.

That is All.