In this video podcast, I discuss the first volume of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring. I make comparisons with the Peter Jackson film, and make some observations about Tolkien’s story, ending with ringing praise of Tolkien’s writing. Although it took on the length of an academic journal article, this is not a seriously researched piece, rather it’s an off-the-cuff, personal, and by memory recounting of the tale as compared with the film. A quick note on the making of this podcast video: I first recorded a completely spontaneous talk on the novel and film, then I transcribed the video, made some minor corrections to the text, cut out the fluff, the hemming and hawing and humming, and reread the text to record this video. In doing so, I halved the amount of time it took to deliver this talk. I think I will continue to use this method in future. Why am I doing this? It’s an experiment of sorts. I’m trying to find out where my personal passions and my newfound love for video podcasting will take me. Meanwhile I welcome all comments!
I’m on the road, having a bit of an adventure here in China, and for my reading companion, I brought this book, which of course everybody will instantly recognize as the first volume in the three-volume story of The Lord of the Rings. So this is The Fellowship of the Ring. And as it explains in the foreword to this volume, The Lord of the Rings is meant to be considered as one novel.
So it's divided into three books, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King. And then each of these books is divided into two books. So there's six books total.
So when you read The Lord of the Rings, you have to think that you're actually just reading one story, one novel, but it's divided into, you can either say three parts or six parts. Today, I want to talk about what makes this such a wonderful book and also how it differs from the movie, right? So we have The Lord of the Rings movie [series directed by Peter Jackson], which is also divided into three parts. It's a trilogy, just as these books are.
And I think I had just finished watching The Hobbit movie series again. I've watched it multiple times. You know, I read The Hobbit with my daughter a few years ago, and I hadn't actually read The Lord of the Rings in a long time.
And then I thought back, when was the last time that I read The Lord of the Rings? And it might actually be when I was a teenager. It's been that long, although I may have read sections of it since then. But I think in terms of reading the entire series front to back, it's, I think I was 13 or 14 years old, maybe 13, because when I was 14, I read Dune. And I remember that very clearly because Dune had an amazing impact on me. So I believe that I read The Lord of the Rings sometime in my early teen years, anyway. And of course, it had left a deep impression on me, especially certain aspects of the book.
But I also remember it being kind of a long plod, which is meant to be, because I think one of the things that you get out of reading the books is how long and arduous their journey was, but also you get such a deep sense of the world that they live in. So I want to talk about that, because I just finished reading the first book. So I just want to focus on that.
And I want to talk about some of the key ways that this book differs from the movie.
Now, I think overall, going back to The Hobbit if you read The Hobbit, and as I said in a previous YouTube podcast, if you watch the Peter Jackson films, there are three of them. So again, it's a trilogy. You get an immediate sense that the story of The Hobbit is in there. There have been some changes to the story, but the changes are on the whole quite minor. And the chief architecture of the story is still there embedded in the trilogy.
But there's a lot of other stories, a lot of side stories and side characters and side kind of adventures, maybe subplots that that are part of The Hobbit, that are part of the film series that weren't originally part of the book. So it got me curious, how much of The Lord of the Rings, how much of the movies is faithful to the original story by Tolkien? And where do they depart from this story and why? So as I read through the Fellowship of the Ring, I was continually thinking back to the films and thinking, okay, what scenes are identical in this book to what's in the movie? And where does the movie differ from the book?
So again, I'm thinking about where are the departures and then where are the places where the film really captures exactly the way it was written in the book. And then why did they decide to make different choices for the film? That was another question that I had in my mind as I was reading this book.
Oh, why did they cut that part out? Why did they change this part and make the story a little bit different? What was the reason? Was it just too hard to capture it in the language of film or did they have some other reasons why they would make these changes? Because my initial impression when seeing the Lord of the Rings films was, wow, that's pretty faithful to the books. Maybe they cut out a few scenes, but by and large, that's faithful to the story. But as I was reading through the Fellowship of the Ring, once again, after so many years, I realized, wow, they did make a lot of changes in the film.
There are a lot of differences between what happens in the story, even though, again, the chief architecture, the core storyline is similar, if not identical. They do make a few key changes to the way the story unfolds. And so what are the reasons for that? Why would the filmmakers choose to do it differently than the book? Now, obviously, you have to make choices when you're making films and you do have to cut some things out.
So the first book and the first film in the trilogy is the Fellowship of the Ring. I believe it starts out very in a similar way with the first scene is Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday, his 111th birthday, which also happens to coincide with Frodo's 33rd birthday, which I don't recall if that was mentioned in the film or not. The focus was on Bilbo's birthday party and how he gathers everybody together. And then in the midst of, of all the festivities with Gandalf supplying fireworks and so on, Bilbo slips on the ring and disappears, and then is never seen or heard from again in the Shire.
So all that's faithful to the story that happens in the movie. What doesn't happen in the film, as I recall, and this was my kind of my first surprise and sort of aha moment. Oh, okay.
That's quite a different story. Now this is the whole premise of the story is going to be different because in the book, what happens is that many, many years pass after Bilbo's disappearance from the Shire and Frodo continues to age until he reaches his 50th birthday. And then Frodo goes off.
So that obviously did not happen in the film. And again, I'm just going on memory, but I think in the movie, it was a pretty quick succession of events that Bilbo disappeared. And then pretty soon after that Frodo started to go on his journey.
So actually the span of time between Bilbo's disappearance and the start of Frodo's journey is very significant in the book, because obviously there's a lot that happens in those intervening years. And you learn as the book progresses that Gandalf was on his own quest for many, many years, trying to understand what was happening in the world, the rise of Sauron being kind of the main theme. The rise of this Dark Lord. And then also what was the nature of this ring that Bilbo had bequeathed to Frodo, although very reluctantly.
And that part is very faithful. The film scene is very faithful to the book as well, that Bilbo is very reluctant at first to give up the ring. And Gandalf can't force him because it's made very clear that whoever is holding the ring should not be forced to give it up.
Or it should not be taken away by force, or that could lead to disastrous consequences. So the fact that Bilbo, despite wanting to hold onto it and despite the ring very much weighing in his mind, he finally gives it up and leaves it for Frodo. So we learn a lot in the book about how Gandalf tried to research the history behind the Ring and try to understand it better.
And his whole process of searching for the origins of the ring, what happened to the ring, where did it take its powers, then what happened to Gollum? How did he acquire the ring? So the entire history of the ring and its powers and its features. And that took Gandalf many, many, many, many years to put together. That's something that I feel is kind of missing from the film.
And if you miss that, then there’s a lot of the story in the book that also doesn't make a lot of sense. So they, they're really creating a kind of a different language for the film and a slightly different story for it to fill fit into the timeframe of a film as opposed to a book. And having said that, I think one of the key differences between the book and the film is that it goes without saying that the book is so much richer in terms of its storytelling, the descriptions of the scenery, the characters, the backstories, but especially in terms of the backstory, the history, the lore, the legends, there's so much more packed into this book than could be in the film.
Even the extended version of the film. So you're constantly being exposed to legends, both through storytelling, because many of the characters in the book are constantly telling stories about the past or legends that they heard growing up, that might relate to their own background as in the case of say Aragorn, or that might relate to middle earth lore in general. So Gandalf tells stories, the Elves tell stories, Elrond for example, and Aragorn. So they all embody this deeper history, and history weaves into legend and lore.
As a historian, I find all this very fascinating, right? Especially a historian of China, where history, legend, and lore are deeply intertwined. So that to me is a really fascinating aspect of the book. And then one thing in particular, and of course, this is something that I suppose some people find is a bit of a turnoff in the book, but I find it a wonderful enhancement of the book is all the songs, right? So Tolkien, the way that he wrote this book is that almost all of the characters, maybe not all of them, depending on their personality and their background, but many of the characters sing songs and the song lyrics are all embedded in the story. They do so at significant moments. The songs usually have some connection to the ongoing story, but they also tell deeper backstories and again, legends and myths and so forth. So we find that we learn a lot about the early history of Middle Earth and also the backgrounds and origins and origin stories of the different races, like the Elves and the Men, the Men of Numenor or the High Elves.
Even Bilbo sings songs. He's actually quite a vigorous songwriter as you find out when they finally get to Rivendell. So that's another fascinating aspect of the book.
That's obviously just not in the film, why they chose to have almost, I can't think of any songs in the film series. There may have been one or two, but I really can't think of any as opposed to in the Hobbit series, at least the Dwarves had that song that they sang in Bilbo's home before they went on their adventure. So actually songs are embedded in both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.
It seems to have been something that Tolkien took seriously, it wasn't just something that he had fun with and enjoyed. And I think he was quite a good songwriter and a lyricist, but I think it also relates to how memory, how history works in Middle Earth. So much of history is, rather than being written down, it's told through songs that are passed on through the generations.
And that point is being made just constantly in the story. Whereas it's almost, I would say completely absent from the films. So that's really something that's missing from the films that you don't understand about this world is how important song is to remembering stories, to remembering legends, not only that, but also geography, the landscape.
This is how the different races of Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, this is how they learn about the landscape that they inhabit and landscapes that are maybe in the distant memory of their races, places that they may visit during their journey or their adventure and that they only knew from song. So that's another thing that I think is very important to the book that is as far as I remember, just completely absent from the film series.
You're just not going to get that aspect of the story from the films. So going back to some of some of the key differences, there are so many points of departure between the book and the film story. It's hard to know where to begin, but I had mentioned earlier just now how it took Frodo another 17 or 18 years to leave the Shire, which also meant that he was much older when he left the Shire.
And here's one thing that started making me think about the films and how the Hobbits, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, and Sam, how they're depicted in the film and they chose the actors, I think to portray the Hobbits as very young, very immature, almost like teenagers setting out on a journey, the kind of journey that teenagers in real life might take a kind of a threshold moment in their lives where they're going out into the real world and battling the monsters of the real world. So it's that kind of coming of age story. I think that's embedded in the film series, whereas in the book Frodo's already, not sure if we can call him middle-aged, but he's 50 years old, which maybe is not quite as old for a Hobbit as it is for a human being, but it's still it's a pretty mature Hobbit, not a young whelp.
And I think that that's a big difference between the book and the films, you kind of think of the Hobbits in the films as these almost like teenagers who easily get into trouble and do silly things. And a little bit of that happens in the book as well, especially for example, Pippin is constantly being chided by Gandalf for being a fool, “fool of Took”-although maybe not as foolish as he appears in the film series.
I get the sense in the books that the Hobbits are a little bit more mature and a little bit more clever and seasoned than they are in their depictions in the film. So that I felt was a big difference between the book and the film. So going back to their departure, there are all sorts of little differences in terms of their journey.
So when the Hobbits, I mean one other kind of foundational moment in, in the films, when the four Hobbits get together and start on the journey, it almost seems as if it was by chance that Merry and Pippin were kind of brought along on the journey. But in the book, you find that it's actually much more intentional. There was a kind of conspiracy for Merry and Pippin to join Sam and Frodo and be part of their journey.
At least the first leg of the journey represented in the Fellowship of the Ring, the way that they come together is actually quite different in the book than in the film. And then as they make their way to the village of Bree, they are pursued by Black Riders, but here's where the language of the film really takes liberties that the film needs to. I suppose the thinking behind the film is that this is a blockbuster movie. There can be some calm scenes of reflection, but then there's gotta be moments of high tension and pursuit and the good guys battling the evil forces.
So in the film, the tension in that scene where they travel to Bree is much, much higher. It's there in the book, but in the film, I believe they're pursued all the way to the ferry. Is it Bucklebury ferry? I'm trying to remember, where they cross the Brandywine River, they're pursued by the Black Rider all the way there.
And then they finally leap onto the ferry at the last moment and escape the Rider. And that definitely does not happen in the book. So there are scenes like that.
And in the book, they actually get to kind of settle down in Frodo’s new community, which is Buckland, where, Merry comes from (trying to remember all these things in my head). But anyway, they sort of settle in a house and then pretend that they're living there, but they actually escape and they go into this forest.
And here's one of the key departures. And I think this has been talked about and criticized and discussed by many lovers of the book series is that they go into the forest where they meet Tom Bombadil. And he is such a memorable character with his yellow boots and his blue jacket and his companion Goldberry, living in this enchanted forest that seems to be completely under his domain, under his control in a way.
It seems like this happy-go-lucky fellow who's constantly singing. But it turns out that he's a very ancient being who seems to have been around longer than any other race, any other characters in the story. So he's a very mysterious character.
And it's hard to tell where Tolkien was going. I can kind of understand why the filmmakers said, well, hold on this, the story of Tom Bombadil doesn't really make a lot of sense against the story of the Ringbearer and bearing the Ring on his journey. So I think that there are a bunch of things that happen in that segment that are just kind of cut out.
So the visit to Tom Bombadil, actually they're saved by Tom Bombadil because a willow tree is slowly swallowing up Merry and Pippin. It's actually a very dark and horrifying kind of image of being swallowed up by a willow tree in this forest. And then Tom Bombadil comes in and saves them and happens to know something about what they're doing in the forest and something about their journey.
Although it turns out that the Ring doesn't mean a lot to him, nor does it have any effect on him. So there's that whole section of the story that's missing from the films that just enhances the lore, the richness, the backstory of Middle Earth and adds more mystery to it. And as they go on their journey, they leave the enchanted forest.
Again, this is very much like a Brothers Grimm fairy tale. Tolkien was borrowing from so many sources, Norse mythology, Teutonic fairy tales-- the enchanted forest. And then they get into this barren land with these undead creatures known as Barrow Wights who inhabit these barrows or tombs.
And in fact, they get kind of enchanted and caught by a Barrow Wight. And again, Tom Bombadil comes to the rescue after Frodo remembers this little ditty that Tom Bombadil taught him-- if you, if you need my help, if you get into trouble, just call me basically is what Tom Bombadil says. And he comes and saves the day again, and saves them from another calamity.
Um, so I think what the book is telling us that the film is not, is that there are these super powerful beings in middle earth who are basically good, but they're, they're restricted to a certain area. And Tom Bombadil is one of them. And we will find out later that Galadriel, the Elven queen, or however you want to call her, is another one.
And there are these domains in Middle-earth that are enchanted and protected by good characters who keep the forests pristine and kind of tend to them and care for the animals and care for the trees and make sure everything is flourishing.
However, their power is limited to their domain, and once you step beyond their circle of power, the enchantment ceases, and then you're in this kind of no-man's land, again, that could be infested by evil creatures. So that's kind of the nature of Middle Earth. You see that again when you get to Rivendell.
It's a kind of enchanted valley that is surrounded by natural barriers, but it's also protected by magic, and that's Elrond's domain. So you have these incredibly powerful beings that are also very ancient, that are protecting certain areas, but whose power is limited. So they can't help Frodo with his journey.
They can't help him bear the ring. They can't control, they can't protect the ring. And I think that's just such a fundamental part of the story of the Lord of the Rings, which, again, it's not that it's not there in the films, but I feel like it's there much more strongly in the books.
You understand that much more deeply in the books than you do in the films. So they continue on their journey. They're pursued by these mysterious Black Riders that don't really understand.
Gandalf who promised Frodo he would join him on this journey has disappeared also mysteriously. That's when they get to Bree. They find this inn in Bree where they spend the night, and that's where they meet Strider, another mysterious character who, it turns out, has been appointed by Gandalf to serve as their guide and their protector.
And, of course, Strider turns out to be Aragorn. So all that is faithful both to the book and the film.
They're on the same page, so to speak. Although there are certain features, and I think a lot of the scenes that happen in the inn are also faithful to the book. So when Frodo, when Pippin and Merry are getting drunk and starting to kind of tell stories, and then Frodo ends up putting the ring on. Frodo ends up inadvertently putting on the ring and disappearing in the middle of the common hall in the inn in Bree. So is it the sign of the Prancing Pony, I think is the name of the inn, the Prancing Pony? And the proprietor is named Barliman Butterbur. It turns out that all the characters in Bree have names that have something to do with, like, plants and flowers. And there's also a significant population of Hobbits in Bree who are kind of considered outsiders. So you learn a lot about the landscape, about the demographics of the different villages that they go to and so on, and the background of the different beings that inhabit these villages and so on.
[This is] something that you learn a lot in the book, but you don't really learn in the film. And despite the fact that in the book, Merry goes off and has a little encounter outside in the village with at least one Black rider.
Whereas in the in the film, I think Merry and Pippin are together in the hall with Bilbo—I mean with Frodo and Sam.
I feel like Frodo and Bilbo, the reason that I kind of mix them up in my mind is that in a way, they're kind of the same character, even though they're obviously, you know, different characters in different stories, but kind of the same archetype.
Right. And there's obviously a reason for that, that Bilbo, not only is Frodo his nephew and and seems to be in terms of his personality and his sort of features, seems to be actually quite similar to Bilbo in a lot of ways. They both have this sort of lust for adventure and a little bit of mischief, and they're definitely not your run-of-the-mill Hobbit.
And Bilbo definitely kind of passes down his mantle to Frodo in a lot of ways. So anyway, without getting into all of the details, they have their adventure in Bree, which is then their little night on the town at the Prancing Pony in Bree, which is rudely interrupted by the arrival of the Black Riders. And of course, Aragorn kind of sets up to fool the Black Riders into thinking that they've killed the Hobbits when, in fact, they've been able to escape and continue on their journey.
And where I think, again, the whole sort of thrust of the book and the tone of the book really differs from the movie is that you really get a much better sense of all of the journeys that they are taking, which are obviously compressed both in time and in terms of the features of the journey. So in fact, the next leg of their journey, which is basically eventually takes them to Rivendell. So from Bree, the object of their next leg of their adventure is to get to Rivendell and the safety of Elrond's domain, which again seems to be a recurring theme in the books and is captured in the film as well, but in a different way.
They go on an adventure through this no-man's land, which is potentially filled with malevolent creatures that are consistently and increasingly invading the territory. It used to be kind of a neutral territory, maybe harsh, maybe, you know, not the kind of landscape that you would normally want to pass through in the best of circumstances. But now you're being pursued by evil creatures.
So the whole gist of their journey from Bree to the safety of Rivendell is that there is a road that they can take to get at least most of the way, if not all of the way, at least a significant amount of the way-- and it would have been much easier to take the road. But they know that the road is being patrolled by these evil creatures, the Black Riders, who turn out to be, of course, the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths. They don't know how many of them there are at this point, but they know that they're out there.
They know that they are hell-bent on finding the Ring, although Frodo doesn't really know that at the time. He doesn't quite understand everything until eventually it's all revealed to him. So there's kind of a slow reveal in the book.
So they have to take these alternate pathways. It's the same reason why they chose to go through the forest and they ended up meeting Tom Bombadil. They have to go off track.
They have to go off the main road to avoid their predators. And that's where they get into other, I wouldn't say necessarily adventures, but hardships, because now they're going through landscapes that are very desolate, very difficult to navigate. And, of course, they have Strider to guide them.
He does his best to guide them through these landscapes. But they are difficult. It's a difficult journey.
So much of this book is... And here's where it really differs from the films. The same thing is true of The Hobbit, the book and the films, is that so much of the journey is just the arduous nature of the journey itself, regardless of what monsters lie out there in wait. And part of it is just the tension and the uncertainty of, are there evil creatures out there trying to get me? And even if there aren't, that thought is always in their minds as they go through the journey, go through the adventure.
But so much of it is just the difficulty of the terrain, having to find a place to camp out and sleep, maybe traveling by night so that they won't be exposed in the daytime. So all of these things that they have to think about as they make their way on this difficult journey. This is just in the first book of the first book, right? So Rivendell is the end point of the first book.
And as I said, Fellowship of the Ring is divided into two books, right? So they go through all these hardships and trials. Meanwhile, they are consistently pursued by the Black Riders. All that is very compressed in the film, and you don't really get a sense of the length of the journey, how many days it took them, all the different landscapes that they had to pass through.
The film is faithful to the crucial moment when they find themselves up in an elevated hilltop [Weathertop]. And they are assaulted by the Black Riders, and Frodo gets stabbed, I think, in the shoulder. And he's stabbed by like a Morgul [knife] by one of the Black Riders.
Maybe it was the chief Black Rider, the meanest dude of all. And that causes him... It puts some kind of a poison... It turns out there's a poison splinter in his body, and he's now slowly dying and turning into a wraith. And he's in mortal danger.
Even though the scene is a little bit different in the book and the film. Basically, the film is faithful to the book there. But this is where we have a major departure, which I think... I'm sure it's been much discussed again by lovers of the Lord of the Rings book series. And it's a very controversial aspect, I think, of the film.
And similar in some ways to The Hobbit, they had to have a strong female character, they decided. And there really aren't any strong female characters, at least in the first volume. I believe... I remember hearing or reading that Tolkien's own daughter urged him to have stronger women characters or female characters in the second and third volume of this trilogy, which there are.
But in the first volume, pretty much all the major characters are male, with the exception of Galadriel, who appears towards the end of the first volume. In the film, we have this, again, very high tension, dramatic scene involving Arwen, the elven daughter of Elrond. And that's true to the book. Elrond's daughter is Arwen. But in the film, she comes out to rescue Frodo and bear him away on horseback all the way to Rivendell, because he's in mortal danger. The time bomb is ticking in his body, and he needs to get to Rivendell so that Elrond can use his magical ways, or whatever you want to call them, to his ancient ways to help save Frodo's life.
And you have that very dramatic chase where the Black Riders are all on horseback, chasing Arwen through a forested landscape. And she's bearing Bilbo on the back of her horse. And then they cross the ford, and the river, in the appearance of nine white stallions, the river comes rushing down and then overwhelms the Nazgul, or the Black Riders.
So part of the story is faithful to the book, but where it departs is that Arwen did not achieve that task in the book. She's waiting for them. She's part of the community in Rivendell, and they get to meet her there. But she definitely did not save Frodo's life. So that part was a complete fabrication for the sake of the film. And it helps also to kind of develop this romance side story between Arwen and Aragorn, which is kind of hinted at in the book, but it's not really a visible feature of the story yet.
Instead, and this again is kind of a detail, but I think people who are really into the book series would know what happens. Instead, they make their kind of arduous and difficult way through very tough terrain, trying to avoid the Black Riders. And they finally get to the area of Rivendell, and they kind of make their way.
And finally, at the end, they are assaulted by the Black Riders. But at that point, another elf Glorfindel appears who happens to know Aragorn, and he immediately assesses what's going on. And he puts Frodo on his horse, which happens to be kind of almost a supernatural horse that can outride the Black Riders.
And so the horse saves Frodo's life. And the scene where the river flood overwhelms the Nazgul or the Black rRders seems almost identical in the book and in the film. And then later we find out that Gandalf had supplied the magic for the white stallions to appear frothing and foaming in the raging river as it flooded over the Nazgul.
So there are key features of the story that are changed for the purpose of drama in the film, but also for the purpose of some kind of romantic story, and also to have a female character take on a larger and more significant role in the film than happened in the book. So I was kind of, you know, I guess in a way, pleasantly surprised to find out that the book's story was different. It just makes it made a lot more sense.
The story in the book made a lot more sense to me. And then when we get to the second book inside the first volume, we then find out a lot more about the backstory, because that's when the council is held. Gandalf is there.
We find out Gandalf's backstory, what took him so long, and why he didn't show up to aid Frodo and the hobbits and Aragorn or Strider on their journey, why they had to go it alone, and it won't be the last time that happens. So I think, by and large, that the film is faithful to that story, to the backstory, but there are a few key differences. What we find out is that Gandalf had been trapped by Saruman, right? Saruman, the head of the order, basically the most powerful wizard who used to be an ally. And then he turns on Gandalf or basically asks Gandalf to join him. Saruman decides that he must either join with Sauron and become an ally of Sauron, or he can take the ring for himself and become even more powerful. So the ring has this incredibly strong power on characters who have a potential for evil, who want to take power into their own hands. And of course, Gandalf refuses to side with Saruman.
And in the film, you have this very dramatic scene where Saruman uses his staff to defeat Gandalf and then, kind of physically, basically fly him up onto the top of the white tower Orthanc that Saruman resides in in Isengard. In the book, you have a more grounded scenario. I feel like Tolkien really thought through carefully all the details and he wanted to avoid the kind of scenes where there's a bit of a deus ex machina or some kind of magical moment that's not really explained. So it's very interesting.
There are a couple of things happen in the book that are key differences to the film portrayal. So one thing that happens in the book is that well, Gandalf is on the road. The reason that he goes to see Saruman in the first place is that he meets another wizard on the road.
And that is Radagast. So Radagast, he's a very memorable character in the Hobbit film series, who loves birds and animals and a wizard of the forest living in Mirkwood. So Gandalf meets Radagast on the road and Radagast tells him, Saruman really needs to talk to you. He urgently needs to see you. So Radagast actually sends Gandalf on this mission to meet with Saruman. And of course, Gandalf thinks, so I have an ally here in this very bleak and difficult quest to bear the ring, the quest that Frodo has taken on.
But Radagast tells him to go see Saruman, but then here's the little twist, which makes in my mind, a lot more sense than what happens in the film. The twist is that Gandalf then says to Radagast--because Radagast has such a great relationship with creatures, right? With plants and animals, uh, almost kind of like a druidic figure, right? Gandalf says, tell the birds and the beasts to send word or spread the word about the evil that has beset the land and that they should be helping us. So Radagast says, yes, I will do that. I will send the word to the birds and the beasts that are on the side of good, obviously.
I'm kind of reminded of the Chronicles of Narnia here for some reason, and it's no coincidence that C.S. Lewis and Tolkien were good friends and colleagues. So Gandalf goes to see Saruman in Orthanc Tower and Saruman gives him this pitch, we should either join with Sauron because he's too powerful and so for the sake of our survival, we should join with him, or come with me and I will take the ring and I will become powerful and I will ward off Sauron. And of course Gandalf won't have that. He knows that the only thing that should be done with the ring is to destroy it because it will cause evil no matter who holds it, no matter who possesses it, it will lead to evil ends.
And then Saruman has his henchmen or the creatures that are following him take Gandalf prisoner, which to me seems like much more kind of sensible way to tell the story. So Gandalf is indeed imprisoned on the top of the tower. But I think in the film there's this kind of dramatic sequence where inexplicably this moth-like creature comes flying and buzzing around Gandalf's head and Gandalf whispers to it.
And none of that really makes sense in the context of the book and the story. So again, the filmmakers were taking great liberties to kind of alter the story. Whereas what makes a lot more sense is that Gandalf had in a way prepared for this eventuality by having Radagast send a message out to the great birds and beasts, their allies.
And so an Eagle comes flying to Saruman's domain and he sees Gandalf and he's not only an Eagle, he's a chief of all the great Eagles. And then he takes Gandalf away to safety, which happens in the film, but you just don't understand why that happened. So there are little changes like that, where I feel like Tolkien had thought through so carefully how one thing led to another and what the connections were in this world and what powers the different characters had.
And I feel like that's kind of being subverted in a way in the film series, in certain scenes, although it's largely faithful to the book story, but again, it's these details. So now they're in Rivendell. Elrond has called the council, all the main characters are telling their stories and giving their backstories. Gandalf is telling the backstory of the ring and how he found out about the nature and the origins of the ring and why, how it went to Gollum who kept it for a long time in the roots of the Misty Mountains, how it then got passed down to Bilbo inadvertently and so on and so forth.
And then how he found out that it was the one, the great Ring of Power, the one ring to rule them all. So all of that story is told in quite a lot of detail in the council and the other characters also get to tell some backstories and reveal how and why they have arrived in Rivendell, the reasons for their journeys and so on and so forth. So you just find out a lot more about the backstories of all these characters, where they came from, why they arrived together. And then finally, why they've joined together in this fellowship to support Frodo on his journey.
Now we're into the second book of the first volume. The fellowship has formed, the nine fellows, head out on the next leg of their journey, knowing that they must support Frodo, the chosen ring bearer, to complete his quest.
And if they fail in doing that, it's basically the end of the world as they know it, and evil forces that are already invading the Middle Earth will basically take over and there's nothing they can do. Even the most powerful characters are going to be surrounded by evil and their domains will either diminish or they will have to leave Middle Earth, in the case of the elves, and so on. So the world is at peril.
Only Frodo can bear the ring. Those are two principles that we discover by the beginning of book two of the Fellowship of the Ring, when they set out on their journey. So the nine fellows go on their journey and here I think the film is somewhat more faithful to the book's story, although there are some minor differences. Interesting to note there are nine fellows versus nine Nazgul or Ringwraiths.
So for example, they basically have two choices how to make their way to the lands where Frodo has a chance to eventually enter Mordor and bring the ring into the heart of Mordor, which is the land that Sauron commands, the heart of evil, and he must bring the ring to Mount Doom or Orodruin, the Cracks of Doom, and destroy it inside this active seething volcano. That's the mission. What's not known at that point is how far the others will join him in this bleak, perilous, almost impossible journey. And so they basically have two choices. They can go over a mountain pass or the darker choice, which they eventually take is to go through the Mines of Moria, also known by the Dwarves as Khazad-dûm, where the Dwarves under their king Durin dug far too deeply and released some dark malevolent force that they don't understand what it was, but it has become a legend.
So the Mines of Moria are long since abandoned, although we do find out that Balin, one of the Dwarves on Bilbo's adventure had come back to try to retake Moria earlier, and we don't know what happened to him. So they have these two choices, and throughout the journey, it's obvious that Gandalf and Aragorn are at odds with each other. Gandalf believes that the only choice is to go through the Mines of Moria, and face this darkness and this danger, whereas Aragorn obviously wants to avoid that.
But as they take the high mountain pass, they are battered by a huge snowstorm, and it's obvious that the snowstorm is in the book, it's this maybe wizard or malevolent force that is preventing them on this leg of the journey. I think it's named Caradhras or something that supposedly dwells in these mountains, whereas in the film, it's Saruman. So again, I feel like the film sets up Saruman as a much more powerful wizard figure than he is, or maybe he's as powerful in the books, but he just doesn't quite have the magical powers that he does in the film.
I think they just really wanted to showcase his magical powers in the film, and that doesn't happen in, at least not in this book. But I can understand why they're trying to create this character of Saruman, make him more memorable as a character, more malevolent, more powerful in the films, by focusing more attention on Saruman than in the book. So that's interesting.
But of course, the fellows do eventually find themselves going through the mines of Moria. And I think some of the essential scenes in the mines of Moria are almost identical in the book and in the film. Although I'd say they're greatly compressed in the film.
In the book, you get the sense that, you know, they're on like a four-day journey through the mines of Moria, which Gandalf is leading them. And then finally it turns out that this mysterious dark force that spelt the end of Khazad-dûm in ancient times was a Balrog, which is this kind of demonic creature of fire that Gandalf is then eventually forced to battle.
And at least in the first book and in the film, it seems that Gandalf has met his end by being dragged down into the depths of darkness by this Balrog that he sacrificed himself in order to let the party continue. So there's, you know, there's a constant theme of sacrifice, which strikes me as very Christian. And it's no coincidence that Tolkien was a Catholic.
And in fact, I remember reading that Tolkien was the one who, through conversations, who encouraged C.S. Lewis to embrace Christianity. That's a very interesting development. But there's this constant theme of sacrifice, of sacrificing yourself for the greater good, for the greater purpose, for the quest. And certainly, you know, Gandalf represents that kind of figure. I don't want to say he's a Christ figure. That would be going too far, I think. Tolkien probably wouldn't agree. But some, you know, a father figure who sacrifices himself continually for the sake of his children, in a way, the good characters that he is helping on their quest.
But there's definitely a kind of a Christian theme sort of pervasive in this series. I don't want to get too far into that, because, you know, that's to me, that's not it's not the most interesting thing about the series and this story. But there don't seem to be any significant points of departure on their journey through the mines of Moria. It’s worth adding here that they begin to perceive some creature following their party through the mines, who of course turns out to be Gollum, and in both the movie and the book they are attacked by a party of orcs and trolls, and Frodo is saved from spear thrust to his chest by the Mithril vest that Bilbo bequeathed to him while in Rivendell.
It's just compressed. It's made a little bit more exciting in the film. They emerge without Gandalf, and then they make their way into the forest where they meet the elf queen Galadriel and Celeborn her partner. The forest is called Lothlórien, the enchanted forest where Galadriel and Celeborn live, along with this more ancient race of Elves. And they live in the trees.
And that's definitely captured in the film. Although I think the description of Lothlórien, the enchanted forest in the book is far richer. You just get this incredible sense of what the forest is like in the book. I didn't feel the film quite captured that. And there are some differences in terms of their encounters with the Elves in the forest. But they're not, I wouldn't say they're that significant.
But again, in the book, the time is expanded. I feel like the film, for the sake of the story, and even in a three-hour or four-hour film, they keep kind of rushing the plot. So they're in a rush to get from here to there and then to get from there.
And you don't really get a sense of the time. But in the book, you get a sense that they actually spent quite a long time in Lothlórien under the care of Galadriel and Celeborn. They are healed, they are nurtured, they're given gifts.
So again, it kind of relates to the story of Tom Bombadil in the beginning of the book, that you have these three places along the journey where they are nurtured and sustained by beings that are incredibly powerful in that domain that have these attributes that are able to help them on their journey, but also provide a safe haven for them to heal and provide them guidance and wisdom and care and nourishment and then send them on their journey. But once they leave the domain, there's nothing that those beings can do for them anymore except just, you know, hope and pray, I suppose.
I just mentioned earlier that there does seem to be some religious themes, maybe Christian themes in the book series. But it's kind of interesting and a bit ironic that religion is not really dealt with in an obvious way in the Lord of the Rings series or in The Hobbit. Religious figures don't seem to play a big role. You don't have a priestly class.
You don't have a major religion that people adhere to or different religious sects or beliefs. I mean, you have lore and legend. And it seems that instead of having, whereas in the Game of Thrones series, the Song of Ice and Fire, you do have religion. You do have the Seven. You have the Septons. You have the priestly class and so forth and different religious beliefs.
But the key difference is that even though there are some, I would say, magical elements, you know, there are dragons and so on. But in the Game of Thrones series, basically, everybody is human. And they're all mortal. Whereas in the Lord of the Rings series, in this type of high fantasy, many of the characters are, I suppose you could call them immortal, like the Elves. They live for ages.
And there are some characters that are even more mysterious, like the wizards or like Tom Bombadil. You don't really understand where they came from or what their true powers are. Rather than having organized religion, you do have, you have rituals, but you have more importantly, legend and lore and some kind of numinous world beyond the world of Middle Earth.
So I think that's a key difference. Anyway, we're getting close to the end of the first book. So then finally, they emerge from Lothlorien, another enchanted forest, and they are healed and renewed and nurtured. And they've been gifted some gifts by the elves, by Galadriel in particular. And that rings true, I think, in the film. And then they're put on boats, elven boats, and go down the river.
That's a very powerful kind of journey, I think, that they take in the book that is not quite captured in the film. It's again, kind of rushed in the film, but they have this passage down the river. And finally, they get to the point at the end of that part of the journey where they have to make a choice.
Do they continue to march towards Mordor and towards almost certain doom, along with Frodo to support him? Or do they go separate ways? And I think all of that is fairly faithful in the film to the book, especially the final scene on the mountain known as Amon Hen, where Boromir turns on Frodo and tries to take the ring from him and then regrets it. And although in, at least in the Fellowship of the Ring in the book, you don't have the attack of the orcs, Boromir doesn't die in this volume. It's kind of a mystery as to where he went.
And in the final scene, Frodo and Sam go off on their own. So it's kind of faithful to the story, except for, I can see why in the film they wanted to squeeze in the final sacrifice of Boromir at the end of his character. So that's basically it.
Thinking back on it, I would say the films, they compress the time, they compress the nature of the journeys. They leave out a lot of the legends and the lore that would be too difficult to explain in film language. It would just take you too far off the main thread of the story.
There are no songs, as I've said a few times now, in the film, whereas the songs are very important in the book. And some people might not like the songs or want to skip over them, but I find them absolutely wonderful. And I would love to like turn them into actually real songs.
I'm sure people have done that before, but I feel like the first stage of this journey, you know, this is book volume one, I have two more volumes to go. I feel like I already have such a richer and deeper, and kind of more, I don't know, concrete, if that's the word, understanding of the story than I did just by watching the films over and over again. There's just something that the book captures that is just lacking in the films.
I feel like the films are kind of almost in a way, a two-dimensional portrayal of a three-dimensional world, if you catch my drift. So I do think that you really need to read the books if you really want to understand the story of the Lord of the Rings, but also, and this'll be my final word, cause this has gone way over, I always go way over, but what the hell, this is more of a podcast than a video. The final word is that I'm in awe of Tolkien's mastery of the art of writing.
I really think that this is great literature. I mean, I suppose high fantasy has always been kind of considered second-class when it comes to literature. And there, there's some reasons for that. It's not Tolstoy, it's not Dostoyevsky. No, it's, partly because I think that our, at least in the 20th century, we put so much emphasis on realism in literature. And so high fantasy is kind of considered some kind of lower brow form of literature.
But I feel like this really is the pinnacle of high fantasy. It's not only is the world so meticulously thought through and crafted, but just the language that he uses to express the world, his descriptions of the landscape of the history and the lore and the legends, the characters are incredibly deep and rich. And so I think that the Lord of the Rings does have its place in the pantheon of world literature, not just fantasy literature, and that it should not be considered somehow second class compared to the great, you know, the literary canon that we praise in academia.
I really think there's a high place in the canon for the Lord of the Rings. So that's going to be my last word. Not everybody will agree. I'm not a literature specialist by any means, but that's my final observation. So, wow, this has gone on for quite a long time, but I hope it's been of interest to some people. Always happy to get comments.