Wednesday, October 28, 2009


Even though “The Fellowship of the Rings” was a fantasy novel I felt as if there was a lot of a “real world” tendency in it. Such as how everything is all well and good in the shire until somebody is given a ring which holds a lot of power. People (hobbits) are taken over by the power that the ring holds. Also the way Tolkien put so much effort in the history and the background of the book it was as if I was reading about a story in a real place and time. Having their own language and land with troubles and success like the real world made it very interesting for me to read.
At first I did not appreciate the details that were put into the novel, but as the story unfolded I realized how important they were. The details also helped me visualize each part of the story much more efficiently.
The ending of the story was unique in the way that it ends on a sad note. This also shows real world facts, ending in life are normally not fun or happy. When the fellowship splits up in the end it left me surprised and wondering what would happen next in the trilogy with just the two of them.
I just wanted to throw in the main difference that I saw between the movie and novel. This difference was the lack of detail in the movie in order to shorten it a great deal, but I feel as if it was for the best so the people watching it would not get bored and the main idea of the book was still the main idea of the movie and the director did not stray from it in my opinion.

Growing up I was never forced to read and take books seriously. Normally I would spend time outside playing and then eventually doing some indoor activities during winter time. So when asked about authors and books I never really have a good answer or background to go on. Armitt did a descent job in my opinion introducing the general idea of fantasy. At our age or generation I did not really know much about some of the books or authors she was talking about. This was mainly because what she was talking about happened in the 19th century and early to mid 20th century, I am too young to know any references from that era and nr do I really care about the in-depth detail of what they were writing about. She did well at trying to give the roots and definition of the topic but it was still hard for me to understand it all.
Aritt did talk about Harry Potter which made me a little happier since this was one of the series that I have actually read and understood. It would have been nice if she used more examples from the past twenty years or so that maybe we would know something about.

No comments: