An illustrated comic: the Ainulindalë

I just wanted to share this amazing piece of work by Evan Plamer. He has illustrated the Ainulindalë as a comic with really beautiful imaginary.

For those who don't know, the Ainulindalë (a Quenya word which translates into "The music of the Ainur") is the first part of the Silmarillion and it narrates the beginning of the world and Middle Earth, as well as its inhabitants. It's a genesis story.

Said that, enjoy this incredible artwork that illustrates to perfection Tolkien's writtings.

http://evanpalmercomics.tumblr.com/post/60248601430/part-1-of-j-r-r-tolkiens-the-ainulindale-read

The Races of middle Earth. Racism in Tolkien's work?

Last year’s Christmas blockbuster “The Hobbit, an unexpected journey” awakened a very old front of controversy in relation to Tolkien’s work. The ever present question of racism in his texts.

There has been a lot of ink spent on discussing this. Some defend that there is a very clear racist component in Tolkien’s work due to his conception of higher men (numenorians) or the rivalry between elves and dwarves. Others claim that this charge is completely invented and an insult to the magnificent body of work this Oxford teacher created.

But this will not be an exposition of what this or that people think. What I intend to do is expose my humble point of view acquired from years devoted to this book and its lore.

I do understand that some aspects of Middle Earth can be read as racist, but I don’t think that this was Tolkien’s intention. And these are not empty words of a fan girl. Allow me to explain why.

If you take a deep look at the books that conform the lore of Middle Earth (The Lord of the rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, etc.) you will actually appreciate a very clever attempt on Tolkien’s part to encase within each race of Middle Earth a human virtue and a human flaw. By doing so, he intended to represent different aspects of the human nature within each race.

And so, Hobbits represent humility, but at the same time, they stand for compliance. Dwarves, stand for perseverance, and also represent greed. The beautiful elves embody wisdom, but also pride and arrogance. And men stand for courage, and represent ambition.

As you see, none of Middle Earth’s races is flawless. And the most interesting thing about this aspect is that each race’s flaw is the logical consequence of its virtue.

For instance, little and humble hobbits are virtuous in their humility. But the logical consequence of their lifestyle (simple and humble) is compliance. Leading such a simple life they grow lazy and uncompromising. Why should they try to be something more if like that they are already fine? This is, basically, a mirror to the reader. Most people are like that. Tolkien was only trying to reflect something that he saw every day. The simple people are often very humble and humility is their greatest virtue. But they are also compliant. They never aim for anything grander, or anything that will change their routine.

Men, on the other hand, have the great virtue of courage. They are the opposite to hobbits, they are always trying to achieve something bigger, to better themselves. And to do that, it takes a lot of courage. The logical downside is ambition. The race of men, is ambitious. They don’t long for riches, like dwarves; they desire power above all. The story of Numenor, as told in the Silmarillion is the very proof of this, as is the story of Boromir and the later madness of Denethor’s.

The same goes for the controversial dwarves. These are creatures that love working and they persevere until they get what they want. They will stop at nothing in their work, which happens to be mining. They are resistant and never complain in the face of hard work. When presented like that, their flaw could be only greed. They are constant and persevere to the extreme, which leads to their greed for riches. Their hard work in mining leads them to the need for more riches.

And there is the great controversy. With that description, everybody thinks that Tolkien was referring to the jews. First of all, I highly doubt it. But even if it was like that, would it matter? There is not a single line in any of Tolkien’s books that say that “dwarves are bad”. Dwarves do bad things, but so do all the other races (except the hobbits, and that’s sort of their sin). Elves also stray from the righteous path. And we all know men do.

This conception of the elves as the perfect race couldn’t be more wrong. It is true that elves are the first race to be created, but just as angels in Judeo-Christianity, they are not perfect. Elves are beautiful by definition; tall and fair. And most of all: elves are wise. But they have a reason to be. Elves are also immortal, and therefore, they have centuries to learn. Elves are not born wise. But they have the time to acquire said wisdom. And what is the logical flaw that comes from wisdom? Arrogance and pride. Elves are both. They know themselves wise, and therefore arrogance can not be far away.

And so, after years of thinking, I’ve come to a conclusion. This racist issue is always raised by people who have only read “The lord of the rings”, or, in most cases, only have seen the movies. And because of it, only have seen the mistakes of dwarves, mainly because all of the mistakes made by elves are narrated in “The Silmarillion”. And because of this, they think that Tolkien presents the elves as the perfect race, whilst dwarves are just a bunch of greedy people.

Well, in “The Silmarillion” there are plenty of arrogant elves that make mistakes, and pay dearly for them. The thing is, by the Third Age (when the war of the ring happens), the elves that have survived until then, are already aware of what happens to those who perish to their own arrogance, and try to avoid it.

But the main reason why I say that I don’t think that dwarves and elves are the literary transposition of nazis and jews stands on one single thing. Elves don’t consider dwarves to be a lesser race. Their hate comes as the result of a long life series of strifes, one of the main being the fact that dwarves killed the elf king in Doriath. But truly, if I had to look for a similarity for the strife between these two, I would never go for the nazis-jews hate, but more like the love-hate relationship between England and France. They’ve been at each other’s throats during centuries, but one has never been better than the other. Each race gave as good as they got.

There is nothing more I can say about it, and whomever wants to keep believing Tolkien was pronazi will keep believing it. But for all there is, I really think that this was not his intend. And I quite like what he did with the races. The idea to have the virtue of each race be the cause of their fault is really smart and I thing that works perfectly.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

The Desolation of Smaug

“The Hobbit or There and Back Again” is a fantasy novel and a children’s book written by J. R. R. Tolkien that was first published on 21st September 1937 to a wide critical acclaim. The book follows the quest of Bilbo Baggins to recover the Misty Mountain and win a share of the treasure  guarded by the dragon Smaug. It’s told in the form of an episodic quest and each chapter introduces an specific creature of this mythical world that is Middle Earth.

Sixty four years later, in 2001, the spectacular screen adaptation of the Lord of the Rings hit the silver screen. It was a success beyond anyone’s imagination. So it was only a matter of time before they brought to the screen the original work that preceded the Lord of the Rings.

And so, last year, “The Hobbit: An unexpected journey” hit the theaters. It was a big let down. And so, I didn’t particularly look forward to this year’s “The desolation of Smaug”. But, being a Tolkien fan, I had to see it. 

I must recognize that it didn’t disappoint me as much as I though it would. It’s entertaining and action packed, and a lot of people will enjoy the hell out of it. But still, there are a lot of things that don’t sit well with me. With that said, I will proceed to comment on the film itself. Please, keep in mind that this is my opinion, just that. And let yourself be warned: spoilers lie ahead.

There’s one first thing I want to get out of the way. This is not a book versus film list. I am aware that in any adaptation, changes need to be done. Although, to be sincere, it will require a big effort. I will focus, mainly on the movie itself and what things work for me or don’t within the adaptation.

Another thing I’d like to get out of the way is the CGI business. I hate the visual effects of this movie (except for Smaug). I don’t like the use they make of the CGI. I think that the Dol Guldur sequence looks particularly bad. You can tell it’s computer generated by a mile. it feels like a video game. That’s not what I want when I go to see a movie. I want to see a movie, not a video game. Besides, am I the only one who things that the orcs in the original trilogy (that were practical effects) looked better than this ones? I hate seeing a close up of an orc and being able to tell that he doesn’t exist, that its just a computer generated image.

With that said, let’s move on. I think that this movie is definitely more entertaining than its predecessor. But, in my opinion, it’s still too long. I think it drags a little at the last 40 minutes. I could start blaming this on this aspect or that aspect of the film, but in the end I thing the problem is much more profound than that. The book is really short, and the story is very straight forward. At the most it could have been split into two movies. Three is really pushing it. While you are watching the movie, you can actually feel the filmmakers struggling to fill those two hours and forty minutes. And that does not help the final product at all.

Another problem very related with the length is reflected in the tone. This was a story intended to be a light hearted children’s story. By making three movies out of it, you are trying to give an epicness to it, that just isn’t there. The stakes are not high enough. This solemnity worked on Lord of the Rings because the very fate of Middle Earth was at stake. Here, there’s just a mountain in stake. It’s not comparable. It is true that the movie has its goofy moments, which work really well, because it is the original tone. But the solemn moments don’t quite fit in.

In relation to that, I want to talk about the Dol Guldur story arc. Even when I watched “An unexpected Journey” I thought that it was a brilliant idea to incorporate this part of the story, even though originally it wasn’t in the book. It was taken from one of the appendices and I though it worked nicely. I still think it, because it ties with the rest of the Trilogy really nicely. But I don’t think that the best way to do it is the way they are doing it. In the source material, it worked because it was more subtle. Gandalf did discover that the Nine had been awakened, and he did go to Dol Guldur to sniff around this necromancer thing. But he never found out it was Sauron. He did suspect that it was a foul thing, and talked to Galadriel about it. But he never discovered the truth. That’s why, in the beginning of the Fellowship, he was surprised when Sauron finally revealed itself. So it’s only understandable that I don’t really like the reveal of Sauron in this movie. It wouldn’t bother me so much if the revelation was only to the audience (after all, that would be the only way for a non-Tolkien reader to link the necromancer to Sauron), but it reveals itself to Gandalf, and it doesn’t make any sense. 

Then there’s the “eye” thing. I know this is really nitpicking, but if Sauron could take already the form of the eye, it would mean that he has recovered all his power, and that would mean that the war could already start. This sounds really stupid, but think about it: if Sauron has all his power back, why wait 60 years before striking upon Middle Earth? Just saying. In the source material, Sauron isn’t able to take the form of the eye until Frodo inherits the ring, and that’s when the ring awakens. It’s a tiny detail, but it would have given a certain level of coherence with the trilogy that now it doesn’t have.

With that said, I will turn my attention to the dwarves. I must face that they were better this time; I mean, there wasn’t any of them fighting orcs with a slingshot. Still, I can’t find it in myself to like this interpretation of Thorin. I know they needed a leader figure, but did they really had to repeat the Aragorn story arc? The whole thing about becoming the King they were born to be doesn’t really fit Thorin in my opinion. He has other problems and inner demons to create his inner conflict. But I understand this is very subjective. 

The other thing that really bothers me is the use they make of Balin (the oldest of the dwarves). Throughout the movie he is reduced to an expository device. It seems that his only function is to explain things to the audience. Every word that comes out of his mouth is exposition. That is something that really bothers me.

Then, there’s the Mirkwood passage. This is my favorite part of the book, so it’s hard for me to see certain things. I’ll agree that the spiders are really good. I enjoyed the hell out of their sequence. The same goes for Thranduil. I love his character and what they did with him. They did change things from the book, but they kept his spirit. He was enjoyable in his prickiness and was everything I expected him to be and more. I also loved the barrel sequence. It was fun, dynamic, entertaining. And even though at times it felt like they were pushing it, it was still enjoyable.

I can not say the same about Tauriel. She is too much for me. I can take a lot of changes from the source material. I could take a new invented character. But I can't stand what they did with her character. I though the love triangle was horrible. I know a lot of people liked her. But it killed me. The whole love attraction between her and Killi was something that made me want to tear my eyes out every time it appeared. I think it wasn’t necessary, and that it undermines the importance and humanity of the later friendship between Legolas and Gimli. With this backstory, that relationship is read as Legolas trying to emulate his beloved Tauriel. Without it, it felt more human, because the friendship was born out of true respect and understanding of each other. So I really thing they messed up with it.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of Legolas’ inclusion in the movie. I like that, I can’t deny it. But I must recognize that, in this movie, Orlando Bloom does his worst. He has the worst acting moments in his career during the length of this film. And that sort of rubs me the wrong way. Besides that, I have another major issue with his character. In the books, and the original trilogy, Legolas was defined by an acute sense of humor and a recurrent use of irony. But somehow, this is lost in this movie. Legolas is one of the younger elves. He is fun loving. But somehow, in The Hobbit, he never smiles. So, you are telling me, that someone who was able to crack jokes before the battle of the Hornburg can’t even smile now? Why do this in a movie where the tone is overall more light and goofy? I really didn’t like that.

The issue of Legolas leads me to another thing I didn’t like. Following the source material line by line doesn’t really make a good adaptation. Maintaining it’s spirit and logic does. It’s important to be faithful to the logic established in the source material. That’s why I hated when, in Lake town, Legolas fought with the orcs barehanded. In the books, and even in the Lord of the Rings movies, it’s established that elves never fight like humans, they wouldn’t use their hands. They have weapons for a reason. This is a silly detail, but it shows a huge discordance with the logic that has been already established. And that bothers me.

Let’s move to the Lake-town. Here, the audience is introduced to Bard the Bowman. In the book, he only appears when the dragon has already burned Lake-town, and his background is explained later. In the movie, they chose to introduce him earlier and give said background before. On one hand, I like it, because it doesn’t seem like he pops out of nowhere. On the other hand, it turns everything very predictable (anyone can tell me that he doesn’t know that Bard is going to shoot the black arrow and kill Smaug?). So, I can’t decide which option would have been better.

And before I start talking about Smaug. I want to say something. I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He is great. He has a huge sense of humor and an incredible timing, but at the same time, he has a huge capacity for emoting in the dramatic moments. So, I have nothing bad to say about him.

Said that, let’s dive into the halls of Erebor. I thought that Smaug was incredible. The animation was amazing. It looked great. And Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug’s voice was top notch. He nailed it. A lot of times, monsters are horribly voiced in movies. They sound too ridiculous. This is not the case. I loved the first scene with Smaug and Bilbo. It’s like a battle of wits almost. That was really enjoyable. What I really didn’t enjoy was the whole sequence with the molten gold. In the books, the dwarves never go into the mountain while Smaug is still inside, but I do understand the dramatic need to have Thorin face Smaug (which never happens in the book, if I recall correctly). What I don’t understand is the need to create a stupid plan to kill the dragon. The gold scene is really silly and far too long. A plan like this makes the characters seem really stupid: why would a boiling liquid (molten gold) kill a dragon? Dragons aren’t affected by fire nor heat. Maybe it is because I’ve read and seen a lot of fantasy, but that is common knowledge. So please writers, do some research before you do something like that.

So, all in all, I think The Hobbit adaptation, if done in two movies and not three, could have been a much better movie. But, being what it is, The desolation of Smaug is entertaining enough and can make you have a good time at the movies, even though it still has a lot of problems that, for me, are very difficult to go through, but for most of people will be unnoticeable.