Hi everyone. Sorry I haven't been around much lately. Not only have I been busy, but I accidentally deleted this post when it was supposed to go up last Saturday. (Sigh.)
This is a picture of our cat, Banjo. He showed up about two years ago at one of our family cookouts, trying to steal the food. He was such a pest that dad jokingly said we should do like the old timers up in the Appalachians used to and turn him into a banjo. Instead, we started feeding him.
The picture was taken at our first cookout this year, where the only thing Banjo tried to steal was our camp chair. As you can tell by his expression, Banjo considers himself supreme ruler of our backyard.
So I finally got to see The Hobbit, and I thought I'd share my first impressions. If you haven't seen the movie and are planning to, you might not want to read this, because it might be spoilery.
So first off, I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo. You know how sometimes when you see the movie version of a book you've grown up with, you can't quite reconcile the actor with the character in your head? Totally didn't happen here. Martin Freeman nailed Bilbo Baggins -appearance, personality, everything. The Unexpected Party was a major highlight of the movie for me, because you see so clearly that here is a genuinely nice person (hobbit) completely overwhelmed by all these strangers that he's too polite to slam the door on. As someone who is easily overwhelmed by crowds myself, I can sympathize. In fact, one of the flaws of the movie (in my opinion) is that we don't have enough of these wonderful character-building moments.
I especially missed Bilbo's point of view in Rivendell. I love the dwarves trying to cook salad, and I enjoy the council. (Gandalf and Galadriel doing the fantasy equivalent of texting under the table when Sauruman goes into lecture mode is priceless.) But this section is Bilbo's first look at Rivendell, the place where he returns to spends his last years in Middle-Earth, and -aside from one backward glance- we never get the sense that it makes any kind of impression on him.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. I wanted to mention the troll scene which deviates from the book, with mixed results. In the book, Thorin sends Bilbo in as a scout to see what he's made of. In the movie, Bilbo gets pushed into going by Fili and Kili, who are panicking because some of the ponies went missing on their watch. This was, I think, a sound decision on the part of Peter Jackson. The movie dwarves draw on some of Tolkien's later writings which further developed the dwarf culture and their warlike nature. The original meeting with the trolls don't fit the more serious nature of the movie.
Unfortunately, the actual capture of the dwarves broke my willing suspension of disbelief. Jackson had Thorin surrender to the trolls because they'd captured Bilbo -but Thorin was a seasoned warrior, a dwarf prince! He would be used to making hard decisions in battle. I have trouble believing that he would let his entire band of loyal followers get eaten just because they threatened Bilbo. It was like he suddenly remembered that Bilbo was the title character and he couldn't let him get killed off for plot reasons.
Using Bilbo instead of Gandalf distract the trolls is great. It shows that he's cunning and can think on his feet. In the book, Bilbo doesn't come in to his own until after he meets Gullom -which is around the one-third mark in the book, but closer to the the three-third mark in the movie. That would be way to late to have your hero just starting to do anything.
I have mixed feelings about Radagast's introduction. My dad found his presence random and confusing, while my brother thought he added a new depth to the world-building. I think people who are familiar with Middle Earth only through the movies might be confused by him, like my dad was. As to the character himself, it really depends on what Peter Jackson plans to do with him in the future movies.
As for the early meeting with the orcs and wargs, I understand it from a plot standpoint. It will make the ending feel inevitable. I like that the lead orc has a history with Thorin. The way they push our heroes to visit Rivendell fills a plot hole that opened up when Jackson decided to accent the dwarf/elf feud. I get it- but I wasn't crazy about that part. Maybe I just know the book a little too well, but that part felt like it was just an action scene, it didn't feel like a Tolkien action scene. Let me see if I can explain... okay. You know Tolkien is fond of the Deu ex Machina, right? We have Gandalf's return at dawn in The Two Towers. we have Aragorn's black ships in Return of the King. Both have a sense of divine intervention, partly because of the use of light and shadow. Tolkien loved using weather in mood setting. Even in the Troll scene earlier in The Hobbit you have the sudden outbreak of sunlight bringing hope (and that was masterfully filmed). The emotional element doesn't come through with this orc raid, and I think it's because the scene isn't based on Tolkien's writing.
The scenes in the Misty Mountains were mostly awesome (especially everything involving Gullom). I loved Bilbo's talk with (I think) Bailin. Those quieter scenes are where Peter Jackson's directing is especially great and I only wish there were more of this sort of thing. I did think Bilbo looked a little too comfortable with the sword in his fight with the orc, especially after he told Gandalf that he'd never drawn a sword in his life. I also thought the dwarves should have been a little quicker on Bilbo's heels when he went after Thorin's attacker in the tree-fight scene. But I did love Thorin's acknowledgement of Bilbo's place in their company there at the end.
Wow. That's a long overview. I'm sure I missed things. Like how much I appreciate that this movie explores dwarf culture. It gives The Hobbit a unique feel, while still keeping a sense that we are in Middle Earth. Also, I know why most people like to see movies in theater: telephones. We got three calls during the prologue. And that's it. I'd love to hear what you all thought, if you've seen the movie.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
John 11: 49-52
While I was taking a Non-Western Lit class at college I was introduced to a collection of Mayan mythology called the Popol Vuh. We only had a couple excerpts but those pieces were interesting enough that I went out to my local B&N and got a copy. (Allen J. Christenson's translation if any one's interested.) I read the first two-thirds right away. The story was weird and interesting, following these twin trickster-gods in and out of the underworld. Then, about two-thirds through the actual people came along and the twins pretty much disappeared out of the story. I got distracted by life and stopped reading for awhile.
I finally got around to picking the book up again. What the last third has (and maybe the numerous footnotes have something to do with this) is a sense of archaeological history. The people move through several named cities. They describe their battle against the surrounding tribes. It's interesting in a totally different way from the first part because of the sense that you've moved from strait myth in to actual memories.
When I was about eight or nine I wanted to be an archaeologist. Then I found out that archaeologists have to memorize the names and ages of different rock strata's, and that people who discover lost cities and ancient tombs have to study dead bodies. (Never on my top ten list of fun sounding things to do.) But even though I never went in for archeology, I still love the idea of finding windows to the past. To me, that's what mythology and older writings are. They allow you to see how people who lived hundreds of years ago looked at life around them, and at their own societies.
Here's the other thing Popol Vuh made me think about; while it didn't go into great detail, there was mention of the whole human sacrifice thing. Now, the Mayan civilization was incredibly advanced as far as technology, math and science are concerned. Just look at their cities with the ziggurats, the carvings, the calender stones. They were an absolutely amazing people. But the thing Western civilization remembers about them (besides ziggurats are cool!) is the human sacrifices. It's such a brutal way to go. Part of their reason for it was to make the nations they conquered fear them. I wonder how much the average citizen thought about the human sacrifice thing, and how much it was just part of society. I think it's easy to ignore the things that are horrifying to outsiders because, well, that's the way it's always been and hey, life's been great so far. I wonder about American society. I mean, we're advanced, right? Tall buildings. Good irrigation systems. Plenty of scientific and mathematical breakthroughs. What things do we see as normal that people of the future will consider barbaric brutalities? (As a pro-lifer, I admit abortion comes to mind. But I'm sure there are plenty of things I'm not thinking of that will shock our descendants.) I guess what I'm saying is, people are people. We'll always have blind spots when we look at our own culture.
My birthday was this past week (32. Yikes!) Here is a picture of me celebrating
Remember how two weeks ago I said I had half a post written? Yeah... this isn't it. That post died a tragic death. Instead of trying to give it CPR, I've decided to talk about the strong plot structure of The 101 Dalmatians, by Dodie Smith.
The book starts fairly slowly, introducing Pongo and Missis and their family. Cruella deVille appears like a storm rumbling in the background; there, but not really involved -yet. The heroes are more worried about their domestic problems. Missus has too many puppies and their humans have to find another nursing dog to help her. They find the half-starved Perdita, a dog who tells our (canine) heroes that her pups were stolen. Our heroes are sorry for her and do their best to help, but the crisis hasn't really hit home yet. The inciting incident is when Pongo and Missis own pups are taken.
Now, at this point in a story, it would be easy to let the heroes wallow in despair. The worst has happened, right? Dodie Smith has her heroes take an active role, though. They send out a message and pick up a possible lead, only to face their first set-back. This isn't a world of talking animals. They can't tell their humans where the pups are; they have to undertake the rescue themselves. I like how Dodie uses the whole `animals in a people world' as an obstruction for her heroes. She even uses the well-meaning owners of Pongo and Missis to set up the next obstacle. The humans advertise for their missing dogs. Pongo and Missis have to leave the main roads or risk getting taken home before they can accomplish their mission.
See, the obstacles don't have to come from the villains. Sometimes they come from good people who have different ideas about how to accomplish a goal, or through communication breakdowns. Or both.
Another thing Dodie Smith does that really helps the story is give the heroes what they're after, while still causing problems for them. She doesn't drag the search out for the whole book; halfway through, Pongo and Missis find their missing children, BUT the kids are not alone. Ninety-eight other puppies are with them, and all are going to be killed if Pongo and Missis don't save them. Talk about raising the stakes! At first Pongo thinks they have about a month to plan the rescue, but -well, remember what I said before about allies who can accidentally add to the problem? The fact that Pongo and Missus' owners are advertising for their lost dogs leads Cruella to decide her dog napping operation is too hot. The parents have to rescue their and every other puppy that night, without any time to prepare.
I'm not going to go through the rest of the book. For one thing, this post is getting a little long. I do think as far as stakes go, this book does an excellent job. Nothing is settled until the end, but the heroes don't get stuck in a Gilligan plot either. (The sort where the audience begins to ask `how are the heroes going to fail this time' instead of wondering whether they'll succeed.) It's important to let your heroes have some success at least by the half-way point, even if reaching one goal just shows how much they still have to accomplish.
So what do you all think? Ever bog out on a story because the heroes set out to do something and still haven't gotten anywhere three books later? Know any good examples where the heroes accomplish enough going along to keep you reading?
Happy Valentine's Day everyone! I had a special Valentine post for you all that I started writing up yesterday... and it's still only half written. It's been awhile since I've posted a picture, so I pulled out an anciently old picture that goes with the theme of Valentine's Day. I hope you like it.
The amazing Tia Nevitts has decided to add reader interviews to her blog and I got to be the first one interviewed! (Cue happy but self conscious blushing). If you want to check it out, here is a link. And seriously, if you haven't checked out Tia's blog already, you really should do that anyway. She has been encouraging writers and would-be-writers for.... lost count of how many years. Let's just say for as long as she's been blogging.
