Fanuidhol wrote:Actually, there were six that bore The Ring -- you forgot Deagol, Gollum's cousin. But, I believe that Lorien's comment "And the 4th book, which Tolkien considered calling "The Journey of the Ring-bearers", is really about the THREE ring bearers." was meant specifically about the 4th "book", part two of Two Towers.
TiggerBear wrote:
The ring passed though 5 hands; Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise.Fan
I would have to agree that this is the list of the people who actually had possession of the Ring (in the sense of 'owners'): Saurun, Isildur, Deagol, Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise
If we are going to add to the list people who might have held it then we would have to add Gandalf (page 48, Single volume) and Tom Bombadil (page 130). At this point I'm not sure if Boromir or anyone else actually held it.
As far as Book 4, The Journey of the Ring Bearers is concerned, though, we are are only talking about Gollum, Frodo, and Sam. My purpose was to point out that there were actually three Ring Bearers in this group because often people forget and think only of Frodo as the Ring Bearer because of his continuity through the books. My case is the treatment of these six books as not only part of the series, but as important entities in their own right. It is too premature (and I really don't know enough yet nor do I remember enough detail) to come to any conclusive theory here. But I see Gollum as the corrupted Ring Bearer, Frodo on the decent being taken over by the Ring and the emergence of the the true hero of the saga and certainly of Book 4, as being Sam. This was something that had not occurred to me before because Book 4 becomes only a subplot to Book 3 when combined in a single volume. Yet Tolkien considered this book as the heart of the whole drama (page 271, Letters).
I think in this reading I will be looking at the six books separately and analyzing and commenting on them in that context rather than the tradition "trilogy" format. It definitely changes things, at least for me. That way each individual book has its own beginning, development, conclusion and purpose.
P.S. Before we are finished I suspect the members of the group will be all signing a petition to have my "Letter" book taken from me!
Message Edited by lorien on 02-27-2008 11:29 AM
The books were broken up due to publishing concerns. 6, 3 neither changes what was written. Perhaps only you perception of it.
--------------------------------------
You are absolutely right! All the words are still there in the same order. The only thing it DOES change is my perception of them. And that is my exact point.
In fact the book I am using now is the one-volume version and I can read that through without any thought of it being 6, 3, or even one book. Hmmm, two books is an interesting idea. Maybe I'll argue that point next!
The only importance of this is what I am looking for in the books. If I just want to read the story for the plot, they could have divided it up anyway they wished. But I think the books (and Tolkien) have a bit more significance beyond the plot of a good story. Otherwise, I have read it, I know how it ends, I don't need to read it again, and there is nothing to talk about.
I also think that is the difference between a good read and literature or for that matter any art. It is the a combination of what the author put down on paper and how I decide to perceive it. Everyone on this board probably has a different idea of what is being said and communicated. It is the value of the board. We share our perceptions. Some of us might agree with one person's perceptions, some might disagree, and some may read the other ideas and be inspired to go off in an entirely new direction that they never thought of before. In fact, some of us (and very likely) won't even agree with what the author said he intended to say. What did he know--his muse wrote the book!
--------------------------------------
You are absolutely right! All the words are still there in the same order. The only thing it DOES change is my perception of them. And that is my exact point.
In fact the book I am using now is the one-volume version and I can read that through without any thought of it being 6, 3, or even one book. Hmmm, two books is an interesting idea. Maybe I'll argue that point next!
The only importance of this is what I am looking for in the books. If I just want to read the story for the plot, they could have divided it up anyway they wished. But I think the books (and Tolkien) have a bit more significance beyond the plot of a good story. Otherwise, I have read it, I know how it ends, I don't need to read it again, and there is nothing to talk about.
I also think that is the difference between a good read and literature or for that matter any art. It is the a combination of what the author put down on paper and how I decide to perceive it. Everyone on this board probably has a different idea of what is being said and communicated. It is the value of the board. We share our perceptions. Some of us might agree with one person's perceptions, some might disagree, and some may read the other ideas and be inspired to go off in an entirely new direction that they never thought of before. In fact, some of us (and very likely) won't even agree with what the author said he intended to say. What did he know--his muse wrote the book!
Actually, it is interesting to note that the series was published as a trilogy for economic reasons. If it were done today, the prevailing marketing and economic approach would have been very different. It would have been a six book series, preferably seven (though The Hobbit could make it seven), they would publish one book at a time and make us wait at least one or two years (if not longer) for the next one. Instead of shortening the appendices, and rejecting the Silmarillion, the publishers would have been insisting that Tolkien turn them into as many full books as possible with a "preclude" series and maybe an "afterward" series on what happened to Sam, Merry, and Pipin and their kin and it would probably be called "The Return of the Dark Lord." 
